Judgment 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition, seeking to quash the the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.10 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH.1) Department dated 27.01.2012, permitting the second respondent to conduct Livestock Inspector Training to 350 candidates for the year 2011-2012 as per the norms stipulated in the earlier Government Orders, namely, to constitute a committee for selection of candidates for Livestock Inspector's Training through Employment Exchange and to define allocation between the Departmental/Ex-servicemen/Compassionate/Employment Exchange. The petitioner has also prayed to quash the consequential proceedings, calling for candidates from the first respondent for Livestock Inspector's Training for the current year by directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the selection for Livestock Inspector's Training. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows: i) The petitioner, who belongs to a Backward Class Community, had enrolled himself in Karur Employment Exchange on 04.05.2012 and his Registration Number is KRD2012M00001065, which is in force till May, 2015. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent, by following the Government Order in G.O.No.132 dated 06.10.2008 passed by the third respondent, has permitted earlier to conduct Livestock Inspector Training to 200 candidates at District Livestock Farm, Hosur during 2008-2009 and also to conduct Livestock Inspector Training every year depending upon the number of vacancies in the cadre of Livestock Inspector Grade II and the availability of the Training Centres. Apart from the above, the third respondent had also issued orders constituting a committee for selection of candidates for Livestock Inspector's Training through Employment Exchange and allocation between Departmental/Ex-servicemen/Compassionate/Employment Exchange. ii) The submission of the petitioner is that vide G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 27.01.2012, the third respondent has now permitted the second respondent to conduct Livestock Inspector Training to 350 candidates for the year 2011-2012 and also to conduct Livestock Inspector Training for two more batches in the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent requested the first respondent to send eligible candidates for the post. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his representation to the first respondent in person to sponsor his name for the post, his name was not sponsored. The petitioner has further submitted that since he has already crossed the age of 40, his chance of getting employment to the Post of Livestock Inspector Grade II is remote. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his representation to the first respondent in person to sponsor his name for the post, his name was not sponsored. The petitioner has further submitted that since he has already crossed the age of 40, his chance of getting employment to the Post of Livestock Inspector Grade II is remote. iii) The petitioner has also submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 are taking steps to fill the selected candidates for the year 2012-2013, which is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the posts should be advertised in dailies, internet, notice board etc. to enable eligible candidates to participate in the process of selection. He has stated that as per the Government Order, it has been decided to recruit persons only from the list of candidates, sponsored by the Employment Exchange and according to him, the employment exchange is not the only source of recruitment. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of vacancies) Rules, 1960 do not deal with the procedure to be followed while sponsoring candidates for appointment to any posts in Government and Private or Public Sector and it is the duty of the respondents to give wide publication for recruiting to the post. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter, wherein the stand of the first respondent is as under: i) The petitioner had registered his name with the first respondent on 04.05.2012 and his date of birth is 05.04.1973. The first respondent stated that 290 vacancies of Livestock Trainee were notified directly to the Director of Employment and Training, Chennai by the second respondent herein and various qualification has been prescribed. Since the petitioner is over aged in the crucial date as on 01.07.2012, his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It has been further stated in the counter that the cut off date for BCO (NP) is 29.05.1997 and for GT (GNP) is 30.05.1995. The petitioner had registered his HSC course on 18.06.1991 and even though the HSC Seniority of the, he was considered ineligible because of his overage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the respondents hits Article 16 of the Constitution of India that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment for appointment to any office under the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the respondents hits Article 16 of the Constitution of India that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment for appointment to any office under the State. It is mandatory on the part of the employer that apart from calling names from the employment exchange, they should also invite applications from all eligible candidates from the Open Market by way of wide publication so as to enable all meritorious students to compete in the selection process. Therefore, the impugned Government Order of the third respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has contended that the petitioner has not reached the norms and requirements mentioned in the notification. He has further contended that due to his over age, he was found ineligible to be sponsored to the second respondent. 6. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 7. A circumspection of the entire facts would reveal that the petitioner belongs to a Backward Class Community, who had duly registered his name with the Employment Exchange, Karur District with Registration Number KRD-2012-M-00001065. Though names of several persons were sponsored for the post of Livestock Inspector by the first respondent, the petitioner's name was not sponsored, because he was at the end of his tether. In pursuance of the decision taken by the second respondent to fill up the post only through the Employment Exchange, the said post was not notified in any of the dailies, internet, notice board etc. Since the petitioner is down and out, he has knocked at the door of this Court for efficacious remedy, stating that the decision of the second respondent in recruiting persons only from the Employment Exchange is non est in law. 8. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had enrolled himself with the first respondent employment exchange and his registration is also valid upto May, 2015. A close surveillance of the counter denotes that it is admitted by the first respondent that names have been called only from the employment exchange and no wider publication has been effected. 8. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had enrolled himself with the first respondent employment exchange and his registration is also valid upto May, 2015. A close surveillance of the counter denotes that it is admitted by the first respondent that names have been called only from the employment exchange and no wider publication has been effected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 , has held as under: "6. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidates are unable to have the manes 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 are 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 Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation as per requisition. In addition the appropriate Department or undertaking or establishment should call for the manes 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. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court further went on to hold as under in the case of State of Orissa & another vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 ; “APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT: 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, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. 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, 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." 10. 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 and16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 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 Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit. 11. However, in the present case on hand, it is seen that there is no whisper as to whether applications were invited from all eligible candidates, besides calling names from the Employment Exchange. The counter merely states that due to the petitioner's over age, his name was not sponsored. The stand of the respondent would have been justified, in case of fulfillment of statutory requirement of wide publication. The counter merely states that due to the petitioner's over age, his name was not sponsored. The stand of the respondent would have been justified, in case of fulfillment of statutory requirement of wide publication. It is also relevant to cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu and others vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and another, reported in 2014 (1) LLN 545 (SC), vide which the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a direction to all the High Courts to comply with the purport of Articles 14 and 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 judgment, parametres for filling up the posts were also given by holding that advertisement in at least two newspapers and one of which must be in vernacular language having wide circulation in the respective State is mandatory, apart from calling for a list from the local Employment Exchange and any selection made without advertisement as prescribed, shall be void ab initio and would remain unenforceable and inexecutable except the appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the Rules applicable. 12. Thus, the legal proposition is very clear in matters relating to appointment and there can be no compromise or relaxation in the process of selection except in the case of compassionate ground. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances and also the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.10 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH.1) Department dated 27.01.2012 is, while declaring as illegal, unsustainable and liable to be set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Since the first respondent has admitted that the petitioner was well within the age in H.Sc. Seniority, I direct the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.