JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P. No.2257 of 2012 dated 6.3.2012 wherein the Appellants have prayed for issuance of Writ of Declaration declaring Schedule-A to Rule 10-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules insofar as restricting the recruitment, only by calling the names of eligible candidate from Employment Exchange as ultra vires and unconstitutional and hit by Article 14, 16(1) & 21 of the Constitution of India along with consequential prayer. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants are restricting to the first portion of the prayer and not pressing the second portion of the prayer namely, the consequential prayer. 2. The said submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is recorded. 3. The grievance of the Appellants as stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition was that the Appellants have passed the Higher Secondary Examination and underwent first year Diploma Course in Teachers Education in the year 1992-1993 in an Institution which was enjoying temporary recognition. The recognition granted to the said Institution namely Good Samaritan Teachers Training Institute, Pudukottai, was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 9494 of 1992 along with batch of cases by Judgment dated 27.4.1993. By virtue of the said Judgment, about 28,000 Teacher Training students, who underwent the course in those Private Teachers Institutes were affected and the Government of Tamil Nadu took a Policy decision to give training to the affected students through Government Teacher Training Institutes in a phased manner. Thereafter, the National Council for Teacher Education Act came into force from 1.7.1995 and the National Council Teacher Education Act prescribed uniform syllabus and curricular for Teacher Education throughout India. The Appellants also underwent the said course and completed the same in the year 2006-2008 (Two years course). By virtue of the selection given on the basis of seniority in the registration in the Employment Exchanges for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, the Appellants right having been affected, they have chosen to file the Writ Petition challenging Rule 10-A(a), as it restricts the appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers only through Employment Exchange with consequential prayer. 4. By virtue of the selection given on the basis of seniority in the registration in the Employment Exchanges for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, the Appellants right having been affected, they have chosen to file the Writ Petition challenging Rule 10-A(a), as it restricts the appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers only through Employment Exchange with consequential prayer. 4. The consequential prayer is given up as the procedure for selection of teachers is changed and the appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers are not made on the basis of the Employment Exchange Registration seniority. However, the learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the said Rule namely Rule 10-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, restricting the candidates for selection only through Employment Exchange is unconstitutional as it is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the constitution of India. 5. Rule 10-A(a), reads thus: "In respect of the posts, which are outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Recruitment shall be made only by calling of names of eligible candidates from Employment Exchange". 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants relied on the Judgment of this Court made in W.A. No.1027 of 2013 which was disposed of on 9.6.2014 rendered by the Division Bench in which one of us (N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) is a member and submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Appeal insofar as the unconstitutionality of Rule 10-A(a), was already settled. However, it is kept in the statute book even after the said Judgment. The Order of the Division Bench was communicated to the Chief Secretary as per the direction of this Court for implementation and the Government also accepted the same. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents also accepted the said fact stating that no Appeal was filed against the said Writ Appeal Order dated 9.6.2014. 8. The point arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the Writ Petition insofar as the declaration prayer sought for by the Petitioners/Writ Appellants. 9. Whether the Government Department or agencies can restrict the candidates sponsored through the employment exchange for selection to public employment was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others, 1996 (6) SCC 216 . 9. Whether the Government Department or agencies can restrict the candidates sponsored through the employment exchange for selection to public employment was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others, 1996 (6) SCC 216 . The said decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India bearing in mind the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, particularly, Section 4(1) of the said Act. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Three-Judge Bench) in Paragraph 6, held thus: "6.... It is common knowledge that may a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the Employment Exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the Requisitioning Authority/establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange, and Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning Department for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate Department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their Office Notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates, who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates." 10. Again the said issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (10) SCC 276 , in respect of recruitment of 1600 Police Constables in the State of Haryana. In the said case, selection of candidates was made only from the list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered to conduct fresh selection by issuing re-advertisement calling for application to fill up those vacancies and the selected candidates were allowed to continue till then. 11. In the said case, selection of candidates was made only from the list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered to conduct fresh selection by issuing re-advertisement calling for application to fill up those vacancies and the selected candidates were allowed to continue till then. 11. In the decision reported in State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty, 2011 (3) SCC 436 , also the same issue again came up for consideration in Paragraphs 35 & 36, it was held thus: "35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But later on, it came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a Notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those, who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the Employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in radio and television as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the Constitution. (Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Admn., AIR 1992 SC 789 ; State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 ; Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, 1996 (6) SCC 216 ; Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, AIR 1996 SC 331; Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto, AIR 2005 SC 2103 ; National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319; Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb, 2008 (8) SCC 420; State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, 2009 (5) SCC 65 ; and State of M.P. v. Mohd. Abrahim, 2009 (15) SCC 214 ). 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting Applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board, etc. Abrahim, 2009 (15) SCC 214 ). 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting Applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. As it deprives the candidates, who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merits." (Emphasis applied) 12. This Court, in the decision reported in P.M. Malathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (3) MLJ 669 , held that any Rule of the State Government restricting the right of consideration of the eligible candidates for public appointment is unconstitutional as it is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is pertinent to note that no contra decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was cited by the learned Special Government Pleader to sustain the Order of the learned Single Judge. 14. It is also relevant to cite a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in Renu and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and another, 2014 (1) LLN 545 (SC) : 2014 (2) Scale 262 . In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the above said proposition of law and gave a direction to all the High Courts to comply with the purport of Articles 14 & 16 of the constitution of India while filling up of any vacant post either in the High Court or in the Subordinate Courts throughout India. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the above said proposition of law and gave a direction to all the High Courts to comply with the purport of Articles 14 & 16 of the constitution of India while filling up of any vacant post either in the High Court or in the Subordinate Courts throughout India. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all posts shall be filled up by issuing Advertisement in atleast two Newspapers and one of which must be in vernacular language having wide circulation in the respective State, apart from calling for a list from the local Employment Exchange and any selection made without advertising as prescribed, shall be void ab initio and would remain unenforceable and inexecutable except the appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the Rules applicable. Considering the said Judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, we are of the view that the declaration sought for by the Appellants are deserved to be allowed and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed insofar as the declaration prayer alone is concerned, namely, to declare Rule 10-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules empowering the Government to get list only from the Employment Exchange for appointing persons in various posts [as ultra vires]. As directed in the Division Bench Order dated 9.6.2014, the Respondents shall call for Applications through Advertisement as well as call for the list from Employment Exchange, if it is required to be called for, and make any selection in public employment for both temporary and permanent appointments. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.