Overturning a single-judge bench judgement, the Division Bench of Kerala High Court on Monday held that the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT for applying to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) is constituionally legal.
Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. thereby allowed the appeal preferred by NTPC against the judgement by which it was held that the condition violates Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
The impugned judgement came in a plea moved by an aspirant to the post of Assistant Law Officer in NTPC and an LL.M student at CUSAT with a specialization in Intellectual Property Rights. She completed LLB with an average score of 70% and claimed of having several academic accolades to her account, and therefore justified eligiblility to apply for the post of Assistant Law Officer at NTPC..
However, the notification issued by the NTPC makes appearance in CLAT mandatory to be considered for the post and that they will be shortlisted based on the rankings in the said examination.
The Single Judge directed NTPC to accept the petitioner's application and test her eligibility through a selection process and also ruled that the conditions creates 'indirect discrimination.'
The respondent had contended that the said condition in resulted in a classification between the candidates who appeared for CLAT examination and the ones who did not appear for the said examination, and that the said classification had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved namely choosing the best available candidate. It was also urged that thousands of qualified candidates who did not appear for CLAT, since they did not choose to pursue LL.M from the National Law Schools, were thrown out of the zone of consideration.
It was the further argument that the zone of consideration was limited to person who appeared for CLAT 2021 and not the candidates who appeared in the CLAT PG of any other year though the upper age limit was fixed as 30 for the candidates. Thus, several candidates who appeared for CLAT examinations in the previous years and who were below 30 years were also excluded.
It was averred that the National Law Universities are public universities where the tuition fee is high and therefore many candidates cannot afford higher studies there and resultantly they do not appear for the CLAT examination. The social factors such as language barrier were also pointed out as reasons for not appearing in the CLAT PG.
It was pointed out that the condition required the candidates to appear in an examination which was conducted six months ago thus throwing out several thousands of candidates from the zone of consideration.
Noting that NTPC should be a model employer and constitutional morality should be the under current of all their decisions, it was urged that the discretion of the employer to fix the selection method and the eligibility criteria not being unbridled, the same had to be interfered if found arbitrary.
Reliance was placed on Lt. Col. Nitisha Vs. Union of India, 2021 Latest Caselaw 165 SC, Sonali Pramod Dhawade and Others v. Central Bank of India and Another.
The learned Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta argued that by the impugned judgment the prerogative and authority of an employer to select its employees is encroached upon (3) criteria for CLAT PG for selection is well known, widespread, fair, just and reasonable. Citing other reasons as well, he cited Surinder Singh Brar and others etc. versus Union of India and others, 2012 Latest Caselaw 587 SC, Nisha A.B. v. State of Kerala
The Court at the outset noted that it is well-settled position in law that the eligibility criteria is at the discretion of the employer.
"No doubt, in the case of an employer who answers to the description of “State” as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution there is a further requirement that the policy decision that informs such prescription must not be vitiated by any arbitrariness or malafides."
The Court didn't agree with the rationale that the condition is illegal and said that the practice of insisting on an appearance at the CLAT PG examination, as a requirement for applying for the post of Law Officer is one that has been in vogue in many Central PSU's at least from 2016.
The CLAT PG examination does not impose any restrictions as regards the law graduates who can appear for it, it added.
The Court opined that the plea of discrimination can be raised and maintained only if it is demonstrated that among those equally eligible, one or some are treated differently by denying them a privilege that is granted to the others and that is not the case here.
"The fact that there were 663 persons who were found eligible for consideration for the post, clearly reveals that the eligibility requirement of appearance at the CLAT PG exam was not one that was impossible of compliance."
On the contention that the condition creates dicrimination violating Article 14, the Court clarified that the basic principle underlying Article 14 is only to ensure that law must operate equally on all persons under the like circumstances and a discretionary power conferred on the employer to fix the eligibility standards or qualification cannot be held to be discriminatory.
"Guarantee for equality cannot imply that qualifications should be prescribed to make every one eligible without conceding the right to the employer to choose what he considers as the best qualification given the nature of the job to be undertaken. Article 16 only speaks of equality of opportunity and not opportunity to achieve equality and is also different from equality of the results."
Ruling that there is nothing discriminatory and arbitrary in the selection process, the Court said that it has to concede the power of the State to frame rules of classification to secure the standard of efficiency they aspire for and classifications always need not be arithmetically exact or to suit the majority.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments