Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1149 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Ashwinkumar Mohanlal Parmara

2016-06-21

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues raised in both the applications are more or less the same, and the challenge is also to the selfsame order passed by the Tribunal, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. By the two captioned applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Gujarat calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 25th February, 2011 passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Applications Nos. 73 and 74 of 1992. 3. The facts of this case may be summarized as under. 4. The respondent No. 2, a Society, issued an advertisement on 19th September, 1990 for filling up two posts of the Junior Clerk in the L.M. College of Pharmacy, situated at Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. It appears that the advertisement was pursuant to the approval granted by the State Government to fill up one post from the Scheduled Caste Category and the other from the Scheduled Tribe Category. Interviews were conducted and, ultimately, the two private respondents before me both belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category were selected and given appointment on the post of the Junior Clerk. 5. The State Government was not happy with the manner in which the recruitment was undertaken. According to the State Government, the approval was granted to appoint one person from the Scheduled Caste Category and the another from the Scheduled Tribe Category, whereas the college appointed both the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category. The second irregularity, according to the State Government, is that although the names of other persons registered with the employment exchange were forwarded for being considered, those persons were not called for interview and only two persons, i.e., the two private respondents before me were interviewed and appointed. One more irregularity has been pointed out that both the private respondents before me were already serving in the college as daily wagers and were given priority or undue favour. 6. Thus, on the above counts, the Government decided not to approve the appointments, as a result, they were not being paid the regular pay scale. This necessitated the two private respondents to approach the Tribunal with their respective applications referred to above. 7. 6. Thus, on the above counts, the Government decided not to approve the appointments, as a result, they were not being paid the regular pay scale. This necessitated the two private respondents to approach the Tribunal with their respective applications referred to above. 7. An interim order came to be passed dated 5th August, 1992 by the Tribunal as under; "Both these application are by the applicant employees of the same opp. College. The questions of facts and law involved are similar. Hence both the application are consolidated and are directed to be heard and finally decided together. Admittedly, both the applicants have been working after their regular selection by the due procedure which is prescribed. Their salaries have been sanctioned by the deptt. Under the direct payment of salaries scheme w.e.f. 1/5/91. All-of-a-sudden, without giving any reasons the Director of Technical Education which is the grant - disbursing authority so far as the opp. Pharmacy college is concerned, has stopped sanctioning the salaries of the applicants under the direct payment of salaries scheme. When the applicants have been appointed after due procedure of selection and whey they are continuing on the available and sanctioned poses, there is no reason why their salaries should not be sanctioned under the direct payment of salaries scheme. No specific order has been passed. The learned Govt. pleader is not in a position to say as we to hay the salaries have not been sanctioned under the direct payment of salaries scheme. The representative of the D.T.E. has not remained present though duly served. Under the above circumstances, when the applicants have been working on sanctioned and available posts and when they have been selected after due procedure, there is no reason to withhold the grant for their salaries. Hence interim injunction granted earlier restraining the opp. College from withholding the regular salaries is confirmed and continued. It is clarified that the salaries which the opp. College shall pay to the applicant shall be held admissible for the purpose of grant and shall be disbursed under the direct payment of salaries scheme till the final disposal of these applications. The final hearing of the applications will take place in due course." 8. The above referred interim order continued from 1992 till the date both the applications came to be allowed by the Tribunal. 9. The final hearing of the applications will take place in due course." 8. The above referred interim order continued from 1992 till the date both the applications came to be allowed by the Tribunal. 9. By an order dated 25th February, 2011, the Tribunal allowed both the applications holding as under; "5. So, pursuant to the Resolution of the Government and the facts on record that at the time of interview "Dy. Secretary". Foods and Drugs Control as a Representative of the Government was remained present and a decision was taken by the Selection Committee unanimously regarding appointment of the Applicant and appointed the Applicant, then this type of objection could not be raised by the said authority. So, in the circumstances, considering the facts of the case, the application of the Applicant is allowed with no order as to costs. Hence, I hereby give direction to the Respondent No. 4 to give approval regarding appointment of the Applicant with retrospective effect i.e. from the date the Applicant had joined the Respondent college. In view of above the matter stands disposed of as allowed. 10. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, the State of Gujarat is here with the two applications. 11. I take notice of the fact that both these applications were adjudicated prior in point of time and by an order dated 20th June, 2012, they were rejected summarily. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the applications, observed as under; "2. The facts in brief are that in pursuance of the advertisement published in the daily news-paper for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk in the respondent - College, respondent No. 1 applied for the same and was called for the interview on 06.09.1990. However, since no candidate from Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribe [for short "S.C. & S.T."] was selected, the respondent College vide letter dated 14.09.1990 asked the District Social Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad to supply the list belonging to S.C. and S.T. category. Accordingly, the District Social Welfare Officer, furnished the list vide order letter dated 08.10.1990. However, the said list was not considered by the respondent College and again on 19.09.1990, another advertisement was published inviting applications from S.C./S.T. for the same post, wherein respondent No. 1 was selected and appointed as a Junior Clerk vide order dated 01.05.1991. Accordingly, the District Social Welfare Officer, furnished the list vide order letter dated 08.10.1990. However, the said list was not considered by the respondent College and again on 19.09.1990, another advertisement was published inviting applications from S.C./S.T. for the same post, wherein respondent No. 1 was selected and appointed as a Junior Clerk vide order dated 01.05.1991. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that though at the time of interview, the Selection Committee was framed and the representative of petitioner herein was present, the petitioner refused approval for the appointment of respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said action, respondent No. 1 preferred Application No. 73 of 1992 before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed vide order dated 25.02.2011. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the record, it transpires that at the time of interview in the year 1990, the Government Representative namely, Dy. Commissioner, Foods and Drugs Control remained present as one of the Member of the Selection committee and the Selection Committee unanimously selected respondent No. 1. Therefore, after following due procedure, the petitioner cannot raise objection for appointment of respondent No. 1 in the service of respondent College. Looking to the facts of the case, it will not be appropriate to set aside the appointment of respondent No. 1 after a long period of 19 years. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just, appropriate and legal and I do not find any reasons to disturb the same. It is, however, observed that if candidate from S.T. category is available, it will be open for the petitioner-State to insists the management to appoint candidate from S.T. category. 4. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed summarily." 12. The order passed by the learned Single Judge referred to above was challenged by the State of Gujarat by filing two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 113 of 2013 and 202 of 2013 respectively. The Division Bench of this Court allowed both the appeals and remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in view of the certain observations. I may quote the observations made by the Division Bench as under; "6. 113 of 2013 and 202 of 2013 respectively. The Division Bench of this Court allowed both the appeals and remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in view of the certain observations. I may quote the observations made by the Division Bench as under; "6. The perusal of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal was only guided by the fact that at the interview in the Committee one of the Members was a Government Officer and, therefore, the objection cannot be raised and thereafter the Tribunal has allowed the application. So far as the learned Single Judge is concerned, the learned Single Judge was also guided by the fact that since the Selection Committee unanimously selected the candidates, objection cannot be raised against the appointment. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that it will be inappropriate to set aside the appointment after a long period of 19 years of service and, therefore, both the petitions were dismissed. 7. We are not satisfied with the reasonings recorded by the Tribunal. Before the learned Single Judge also, the major consideration was that for a period of about 19 years the employee concerned has continued in service. It was required for the Tribunal to examine the aspect that if the names were called for from the Employment Exchange and those candidates were not called for interviews, whether the selection process would be vitiated or not, more particularly when it was admitted by the College that by mistake those candidates were not called for interviews. It was in a matter where the merits of the decision of the selection committee was to be examined, but was rather a matter of following the procedure for giving opportunity to other eligible candidates whose names were called for interviews from the Social Welfare Officer for the post in question. 8. We find that the ground of not considering the merits of the matter on account of the fact that 19 years time has passed in the litigation could not be said as valid to decline the judicial scrutiny of the action, which was subject matter of the petition before the Tribunal. It was required in the Special Civil Applications to examine as to whether the approach of the Tribunal could be maintained or not. It was required in the Special Civil Applications to examine as to whether the approach of the Tribunal could be maintained or not. Merely because there was delay in adjudication of the matter cannot be considered as a valid ground to confer any additional right in favour of any party. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.S. Patil (Dr.) v. Gulbarga University and Others, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 63 and more particularly the observations made at paragraphs 15, 16, and 17, which read as under:- 15. Once the facts of the case are narrated, there remains hardly anything to adjudicate upon. The facts of the case lead to only one conclusion that the appellant was wrongly appointed to a post that was reserved for Group B category. The High Court has also found that the appellants selection for appointment to the post was tainted by the participation of the Head of the Department of Kannada, who was related to him, in the selection process. In those facts and circumstances, all that is needed is to dismiss the appeal without further ado. 16. But at this stage once again a strong appeal is made to let the appellant continue on the post where he has already worked for over 17 years. Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, submitted that throwing him out after more than 17 years would be very hard and unfair to him since now he cannot even go back to the college where he worked as lecturer and from where he had resigned to join to this post. 17. We are unimpressed. In service law there is no place for the concepts of adverse possession or holding over. Helped by some University authorities and the gratuitous circumstances of the interim orders passed by the Court and the delay in final disposal of the mater, the appellant has been occupying the post, for all these years that lawfully belonged to someone else. The equitable considerations are, thus, actually against him rather than in his favour. 9. We would have further examined the matter and recorded the reasons, however, the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides are agreeable for the remand of the matter to the learned Single Judge for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Hence, we leave the matter at that stage. 10. 9. We would have further examined the matter and recorded the reasons, however, the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides are agreeable for the remand of the matter to the learned Single Judge for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Hence, we leave the matter at that stage. 10. Suffice it to state that considering the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as there is no proper examination of the matter, it would be just and proper to remand the matter for consideration afresh. 11. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside in the respective petitions with the direction that the concerned Special Civil Applications shall stand restored for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. It will be open to either side to move the learned Single Judge for early hearing of the main petition. 12. Both the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs." 13. Thus, according to the order passed by the Division Bench referred to above, I need to now only examine the question as regards the effect of not calling those persons whose names were called for from the employment exchange. Whether that by itself would vitiate the selection process, rendering the appointments of the two respondents illegal? 14. The lapse on the part of the society was explained to the Tribunal by way of a reply. The explanation is as under: "1. That there were three sanctioned posts of Junior Clerk-cum-typist in the L.M. College of Pharmacy, Ahmedabad. The said posts were held by Shri H.D. Pandya, Shri B.C. Patel and Shri R.R. Rathod. Shri H.D. Pandya was transferred on promotion to L.D. Arts College in September, 1989. Shri R.R. Rathod was transferred on promotion to M.G. Science Institute in February, 1990. Thus, there were two vacancies on the said posts. The said posts were held by Shri H.D. Pandya, Shri B.C. Patel and Shri R.R. Rathod. Shri H.D. Pandya was transferred on promotion to L.D. Arts College in September, 1989. Shri R.R. Rathod was transferred on promotion to M.G. Science Institute in February, 1990. Thus, there were two vacancies on the said posts. In view of vacancy arising out of promotion of Shri H.D. Pandya, services of Shri B.J. Gopani were availed on daily wages with the permission of the Food and Drug Control Administration which was granted for three months availed on daily wages with the permission of the Food and Drug Control Administration vide their letter dated 7/3/1990 refused the permission for further continuing services of Shri B.J. Gopani and asked the college the fill up the vacancy on permanent basis from reserved category. The college had promoted Shri G.K. Thakore from the post of peon to the clerk. However, availed on daily wages with the permission of the Food and Drug Control Administration rejected the promotion of Shri Thakore and Called upon the College to make appointment from reserve categories on permanent basis in place of Shri H.D. Pandya and R.R. Rathod vide their letter dated 22/5/90. It may not be out of place to note that time and again availed on daily wages with the permission of the Food and Drug Control Administration was insisting for clearing the back log of reserved category. 3. The College, thereafter, advertised, in daily "Gujarat Samachar" dated 25/6/90 for the post of Junior Clerks inviting applications form Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribes were called for interview on 6/9/90. No one was selected. The College, therefore, once again wrote to the Social Welfare Officer on 14/9/90 to send the list of Candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Category. The said posts were re-advertised on 19/9/90 inviting applications from scheduled caste/scheduled tribes. Selection Committee held the interviews on 13/12/90. After interviewing the candidates, Shri N.B. Luhar and Shri Aswin M. Parmar both from scheduled caste candidates were selection in order of preference. As no scheduled tribe candidate was found to the mark, it was decided to re-advertise the post. The said posts were re-advertised on 19/9/90 inviting applications from scheduled caste/scheduled tribes. Selection Committee held the interviews on 13/12/90. After interviewing the candidates, Shri N.B. Luhar and Shri Aswin M. Parmar both from scheduled caste candidates were selection in order of preference. As no scheduled tribe candidate was found to the mark, it was decided to re-advertise the post. The respondent No. 1 vide their letter dated 5/1/91 sought the approval of the selection from Food and Drug Control Administration, in response to the said letter dated 5/1/91, informed vide their letter dated 1/3/91 that as names from employment exchange were not called for, names should be called from the said office and thereafter interviews should be held and candidates appointed on ad-hoc basis should be relieved. There was heavy work load. The respondent No. 1, in anticipation that Department may condone the slip/mistakes and regularize the appointment, issued appointment letters to Shri N.B. Luhar and Shri A.M. Parmar on 29/6/91 subject to approval of the university and the government. It may be noted that at that time, the Food and Drug Control Administration has raised only one objection that the candidates from Employment Exchange were not called for. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Control Administration ceased to be the Grant Disbursing Authority and Director Technical Education, Gandhinagar became the Grant Disbursing Authority. The said authority objected the appointments vide their letter dated 22/4/92 on the ground that names were not called for from local employment exchange. The said department vide their letter dated 28/5/92 called upon the college to relieve Shri N.B. Luhar and Shree A.N. Parmar as the names to candidates from employment exchange were not called for. The college, therefore, vide their letter dated 3/6/92 represented that both the candidates were on the active list of the employment exchange as well as social welfare department and they were holding a number and card from both the department. The college also pointed out that list of suitable candidates from social welfare department were called for but through oversight, candidates were not called for there was no response. Thereafter, the said Shri N.B. Luhar and Shri A.N. Parmar FILED APPLICATION No. 73 of 1992 and 74 of 1992 respectively and obtained orders. The college also pointed out that list of suitable candidates from social welfare department were called for but through oversight, candidates were not called for there was no response. Thereafter, the said Shri N.B. Luhar and Shri A.N. Parmar FILED APPLICATION No. 73 of 1992 and 74 of 1992 respectively and obtained orders. Director Technical Education has not accepted the explanation offered by the college that through oversight, candidates from the Social Welfare Department were not called for interview and therefore, has contended that the appointments were not in accordance with law." 15. Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP has severely criticized the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the impugned order could be termed as a non speaking order. He pointed out that no reasons worth the name have been assigned by the Tribunal except what is contained in para-5 of the impugned order. 16. Mr. Goutam submitted that the State Government had forwarded the names of the persons who had got themselves enrolled with the employment exchange. He submitted that the college was obliged to issue interview letters to those persons also, and the failure on the part of the college in not calling them for the interview, vitiated the entire process of selection and thereby rendering the appointments of both the private respondents illegal. 17. The learned AGP would submit that it is settled law, as laid down by the Supreme Court that if the selection process suffers from the serious irregularities and lapses, then the entire selection stands vitiated and is to be held illegal. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be quashed, or in the alternative, the college may be saddled with the liability of paying the salary and the retiral benefits. 18. The learned AGP would further submit, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors. 1996 (6) SCC 216 that public authorities or the State are under a duty to give wide publicity to all desirous of participating in the selection process, with the aim of enlarging the scope of recruitment, so that the best talent is attracted. 19. He relies on the judgments in Sureshkumar & Others, (2003) 10 SCC 276 , National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. 19. He relies on the judgments in Sureshkumar & Others, (2003) 10 SCC 276 , National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh, 2006 (6) A.D. (S.C.) 577; Raj Kumar & Others v. Shakti Raj & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2110 . It is contended that even where persons hold posts for 5-15 years or more, selections/appointments have been cancelled since appointments made without following rules and proper selection process are a nullity and in fact back door entries. 20. On the other hand, both the applications have been vehemently opposed by Ms. Jani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 of Special Civil Application No. 6799 and the counsel appearing for the other respondent. 21. She pointed out that the respondent No. 1 of the Special Civil Application No. 6797 is to retire within two years from now, and so far as the respondent No. 1 of the Special Civil Application No. 6799 is concerned, he would be retiring in the month of September, 2016. 22. She submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal. She submitted that the recruitment was in accordance with the rules and regulations and no irregularities were committed at the relevant point of time. 23. Ms. Jani pointed out that it is not that only the two private respondents were called for the interview. Pursuant to the advertisement which was issued by the college, in all, seven applications were received including the two applications of the private respondents. According to Ms. Jani, in all, seven candidates were interviewed and, thereafter, the two private respondents were selected for the post. 24. Mr. R.R. Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the Society and the College submitted that the Government had to forward the names within seven days from the date of the issue of the advertisement according to the Government Resolution, however, the names were received by the college after almost a period of 28 days and, therefore, in such circumstances, the names forwarded by the Government of those persons who had got themselves enrolled with the employment exchange were not called for the interview. He submitted that it was a mistake on the part of the college, but that by itself would not vitiate the entire process of selection. 25. He submitted that it was a mistake on the part of the college, but that by itself would not vitiate the entire process of selection. 25. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, two questions fall for my consideration, first, whether the Tribunal committed any error in passing the impugned order and secondly, whether the selection process could be said to have been vitiated on account of the lapse on the part of the college in not calling the candidates who were enrolled with the employment exchange. 26. It would have been much better and desirable if the candidates, whose names were forwarded by the State Government also would have been issued the interview letters and called for the interview. As observed by the Supreme Court, the object of recruitment to any service or post is to secure the most suitable person who answers the demands of the requirements of the job. In the case of public employment, it is necessary to eliminate the arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce uniformity of standards and orderliness in the matter of employment. 27. The guarantee of equal opportunity in matters of public employment is not an empty one. It is not without any reason that the law insists that all candidates similarly circumstanced in regard to experience, and qualifications, should be given the same chance to compete, so that the best among them is selected and appointed. Public employment is not largesse, which can be dispensed with on individual choice or discretion, every authority entrusted with the task of recruitment has to ensure that a fair chance is given to all, that can be possible only if all are made aware in a transparent and non-arbitrary manner. The Supreme Court had in Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, (1996) 6 SCC 216 , commented as follows: "The Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal noted the contention of counsel appearing for respondents therein that excluding the candidates who were not sponsored through medium of employment exchange and restricting the choice of selection to the candidates sponsored through the medium of employment exchange, would offend the equality clause of Articles 14 and 16 and held that the contentions was attractive and it was not open to the Government to impose restriction on the field of choice. But in view of the fact that even the paper publication would not reach many a handicapped who would be unable to have access to the newspapers, it was held that the sponsorship through the medium of employment exchange would not violate Articles 14 and 16. On the other hand, it would advance the rights to the handicapped. In that view, this Court upheld the restriction imposed by the State and Central Governments to consider the cases of the candidates through medium of employment exchange, while holding that such a restriction was not intended to be applicable to the private employment as held in para 6 of the judgment." 28. In Rajkumar v. Shakti Raj, (1997) 9 SCC 527 , the Supreme Court made the following observations: "The necessary requirement should be that they should necessarily not only notify but also call the names from employment exchange; in addition they should give wide publicity in the media inviting applications from qualified persons for selection. In stead, they have adopted the procedure under the 1955 Rules. They did not call the names from the employment exchange and conducted the examination from them. After the selection of the candidates, names of selected candidates were called from the employment exchange. Obviously, the successful candidates in the written examination were asked to approach the employment exchange of the circle concerned and, accordingly, names came to be sponsored. The procedure adopted is clearly illegal denying equal opportunity to many a candidate waiting in the register employment exchange concerned. Therefore, the Government hereafter should strictly followed the procedure by not only calling their names from the employment exchange, but also by publishing in the local and national papers and giving wide publicity in the media as well as getting the written examination and the interview conducted by the SSSB; marks should be awarded strictly according to the procedure." 29. Long ago, in B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, (1988) 4 SCC 582, the Supreme Court had emphasized about the need to give due publicity in the following manner: "Compliance with this bye-law also seems to be necessary in the name of fair play. Long ago, in B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, (1988) 4 SCC 582, the Supreme Court had emphasized about the need to give due publicity in the following manner: "Compliance with this bye-law also seems to be necessary in the name of fair play. If the vacancy in the post of Director had been publicized as contemplated by bye-law 2, all the persons eligible for the post may have applied and in that case, the field of consideration would have been enlarged and the selection committee or the council would have had a much larger field from which to choose the best available person and that would have removed all doubts of arbitrariness from the mind of those eligible for the post." 30. At the same time, I am of the view that the mistake on the part of the college as explained by them in not issuing the interview letters to the persons whose names were referred by the State Government after calling the same from the employment exchange was not deliberate and did not render the entire selection process vitiated. I do not find any element of arbitrariness or favouritism so far the appointments of the two private respondents is concerned. They were considered along with five other applicants and having found to be meritorious were, accordingly, appointed on the post. Only because they were already serving with the college as ad-hoc employees and, later on, appointed on the regular basis, need not necessarily lead to an inference that undue favour was shown to them. I am of the view that the omission on the part of the college as complained by the State Government, by itself, will not render the appointments of the two respondents illegal. The distinction between the two terms i.e. illegal appointment and irregular appointment, is apparent. I am of the view that the omission on the part of the college as complained by the State Government, by itself, will not render the appointments of the two respondents illegal. The distinction between the two terms i.e. illegal appointment and irregular appointment, is apparent. In the event, the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance of the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, yet the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to (Ganeshbhai Juthabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., Special Civil Application No. 10173 of 2014, decided on 14.7.2015). 31. The supreme Court, in some judgments, has indicated that the facts of each case would dictate the equities to be taken into consideration, and the issuance of appropriate orders. Thus, in Buddhi Nath Chaudhary vs. Abahi Kumar, 2001 (3) SCC 328 and Roshni Devi Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 3268 , the Court did not annul or invalidate the select list, despite infirmities; instead, the appointments were left undisturbed, and suitable directions were issued. This approach was also approved in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2000 (1) SCC 128 . 32. Mr. R.R. Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the College and the Society, submitted that there has been no complaint since 1992 of the similar nature. The Society has, so far, strictly adhered to the rules and the regulations and has also honoured the directions issued by the State Government time to time. 33. At one stage, during the course of the hearing of these matters, it was also sought to be argued that the instructions issued by the State Government in this regard, i.e., insisting to call for the names from the employment exchange are not binding to the college as such instructions have no statutory force. 33. At one stage, during the course of the hearing of these matters, it was also sought to be argued that the instructions issued by the State Government in this regard, i.e., insisting to call for the names from the employment exchange are not binding to the college as such instructions have no statutory force. I am not impressed by such submission for the reason that although there may not be any statutory rules or regulations in this regard, yet if the college is receiving the grant from the State Government, then it is expected to follow the policy of the State Government. Even, otherwise, without going into the issue of the binding nature of the instructions or the directions, it is always desirable that in public employment, the consideration of the merit should not be restricted and the employer should make all possible endeavour to choose the best and the most efficient person for the job. That is why, in Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court has taken the view that the Act does not oblige any employer to employ those persons only who have been sponsored by the employment exchanges. 34. It is now well settled that when the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is invoked, a mere wrong decision or order would not be sufficient to interfere. 35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the applications fail and are hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.