JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. 1. We have heard Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. J. Roy, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Sarma, learned Advocate for Numaligarh Refinery Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking. 2. The present petition questions the policy of Numaligarh Refinery Limited, (hereinafter called “NRL), whereby the recruitment in the service of the NRL is only through the Employment Exchange of Golaghat. 3. The petitioners have challenged both the Recruitment Rules followed by NRL and the process initiated by it as those are unconstitutional and violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality before law and equal opportunity in the public employment. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that since 2004, the NRL has been restricting job advertisements for Lower Grade posts i.e. Grade IV and V, only to the candidates sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Golaghat, thereby excluding the eligible job seekers from other parts of Assam. 5. Until 2003, the recruitment in NRL was conducted through open advertisements, accessible to all eligible candidates across the State. Since 2004, a change has been made, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. 6. This Court has been informed that earlier in the year 2021, a writ petition was filed vide WP(C) No.7217/2021 challenging a Notification of August, 2021, whereby the NRL had called for candidates only through the Golaghat Employment Exchange. Even during the pendency of the case, the NRL continued with its recruitment process and issued selection orders. 7. The only justification for the same by the NRL is that it has its own Recruitment Rules for employees other than the officers. Rule 7 of those set of Rules permits the NRL to limit the recruitment to candidates sponsored by Golaghat Employment Exchange. The further justification for such restrictive recruitment policy is the peculiarity of the location and the situs of NRL, which falls in “No Development Zone” obligating the Company to provide for means of livelihood for people in the District where the Refinery is situated. 8. Keeping that in mind, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the amendment to the Recruitment Rules and provided for such restricted Recruitment Policy. 9. 8. Keeping that in mind, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the amendment to the Recruitment Rules and provided for such restricted Recruitment Policy. 9. The consideration of the population of Golaghat District, the declaration of “No Development Zone” in the area and the lean manpower of NRL were factored in. 10. It was also considered by the Refinery that it was established as a result of Assam Accord which had emphasized on promotion of local employment alongside industrial development. Reservation for local candidates was thus for the purpose of improving the poverty level of the local population for whom there would be little employment opportunities. 11. The petitioners, however, have pointed out that way-back in 1996, the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors . (1996) 6 SCC 216 had held that it is a matter of common knowledge that many a candidates are unable to have their names sponsored by the Employment Exchange though their names may be registered or they would be waiting to be registered in the Employment Exchange. 12. Under such circumstance, if the choice of selection by a Company is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names would be sponsored by such Employment Exchange, it would not be in consonance with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. Many a deserving candidates would then be deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. 13. It was thus held that it is mandatory for the Requisitioning Authority/Establishments to intimate the Employment Exchange which in turn should sponsor the names of the candidates to the Requisitioning Departments for selection, strictly according to seniority and reservation as per requisition. In addition, it was observed that 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 and announce on radio, television and employment news bulletin and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. The Supreme Court opined that if this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in matters of employment would then be available to all the candidates. 14. The Supreme Court opined that if this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in matters of employment would then be available to all the candidates. 14. It would be relevant in this context to refer to the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 [for short, Act of 1959]. 15. Section 4 of the Act of 1959, referred to above, mandates that the employer in every establishment in public sector in that State or area shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such Employment Exchanges as may be prescribed. However, it shall not be obligatory for any establishment in the public sector to recruit only those persons who would be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 16. A plain reading of Section 4 of the Act of 1959 in its entirety would suggest that the employer is under no obligation to recruit any person through Employment Exchange only. 17. Thus, there being no statutory intendment, the employer should always, therefore, care for providing equality of opportunity for all eligible candidates. 18. In State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , the Supreme Court made a pithy observation regarding cascading impact of restricting the employment only to persons sponsored by an Employment Exchange. Even though, initially it was thought that such method of employment would curb the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment, but later, it was found that a practice more consistent with Article 16 would be to make the employment open for public at large. 19. Such views have been echoed in other judgments of the Supreme Court as well. [Refer to Delhi Development Horticulture Empoloyees’ Union Vs. Delhi Administration , (1992) 4 SCC 99 ; State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh , (1992) 4 SCC 118 and State of MP Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim , (2009) 15 SCC 214] 20. On a holistic reading of all the afore-noted pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it appears that 100% reservation for Employment Exchange sponsored candidates would not muster the test of constitutionality. 21. During the course of the argument, Mr. Bhagabati, learned Advocate has informed this Court that now the reservation has been reduced to 30%. 22. This also would not serve any purpose. 23. 21. During the course of the argument, Mr. Bhagabati, learned Advocate has informed this Court that now the reservation has been reduced to 30%. 22. This also would not serve any purpose. 23. We say so for the reason that if the recruitment process is open to all eligible candidates, it shall cater to the needs of the local population as well. It cannot be said with certainty that all persons of Golaghat or neighbouring areas would have registered themselves with the Employment Exchange; in which case they would not have an opportunity of applying for their recruitment in the NRL. Even otherwise, the Recruitment Rules of NRL do not appear to have any statutory value for the reason that it does not indicate any cut-off date or any concrete policy decision. 24. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that any decision of the NRL to restrict the recruitment to Employment Exchange sponsored candidates even to the extent of 30% of the vacancy would be bad in law and would be unsustainable. 25. This writ petition, therefore, is allowed with the direction to the NRL to open up the recruitment whenever it is made to all the eligible candidates and not restrict it to Employment Exchange sponsored candidates only. 26. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed off accordingly.