The recruitment policy limiting applications to candidates sponsored by a specific Employment Exchange violates Articles 14 and 16, ensuring equal opportunity in public employment.

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. 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