Live Registration With Employment Exchange Is Not Necessary For Public Employment Even If Specifically Mentioned In Advertisement: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, reiterated that the requirement of live registration with employment exchange is not necessary for public employment, even if the requirement is specifically mentioned in the advertisement.
The Petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for post of Jail Prahari but was declined due to non-registration with employment exchange. The Court allowed his writ petition and observed that such requirement is not necessary, even if it is expressly mentioned in the disputed advertisement.
The Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “Thus, it is clear that requirement of live registration with employment exchange is not necessary and even if, such a condition is mentioned in the advertisement, still it is not only unnecessary and irrelevant but also unlawful… Under these circumstances, non-consideration of claim of the petitioners for their recruitment to the post of Jail Prahari merely on the ground that they were not having live registration certificate with employment exchange is contrary to law”.
Advocate Srajan Kashyap appeared for the Petitioner and Government Advocate KS Baghel appeared for the Respondent/State.
The Petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the position of Jail Prahari. The Petitioner asserted that their candidature was declined solely because they lacked a live employment exchange registration card.
However, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was deemed unqualified due to the absence of live registration with the State Employment Exchange.
The Court referred to the case of Ram Singh Dhurvey v The State of M.P. & others (WP No. 14004/2021). The Court reiterated that the mandate of ‘live registration with employment exchange’ was not necessary. The Court, in the Ram Singh (supra) case held that the requirement of live registration is unlawful and irrelevant.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Sushil Kumar Sharma v State Of Madhya Pradesh
