JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2022 The petitioner is a Law Graduate, pursuing her post graduate studies (LLM) at Cochin University of Science and Technology. She completed her LL.B (Hons) from Government Law College, Thrissur with an average of 70%. In December 2021, the second respondent (NTPC Ltd), published Ext.P3 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Law Officer. The qualification prescribed for the post is Bachelor Degree in Law (LL.B or equivalent-full time degree from a recognised Indian University/Institute) with minimum 60% marks. The candidate should also be registered with the Bar Council. As per the notification, the selection is confined to only those candidates who have appeared for CLAT-2021 (Common Law Admission Test-2021) Post Graduate programme conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities. Based on their performance in the test, the candidates will be shortlisted for document verification. The petitioner being a law graduate with the requisite minimum marks is desirous of applying for the notified vacancy, but is prevented from doing so, as she had not appeared for the CLAT-2021 PG programme. The petitioner therefore assails the selection process on the ground that it is discriminatory and violates Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Finding prima facile merit in the challenge, an interim order was passed, directing the competent among respondents to accept the petitioner's application, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

2. Aggrieved by the interim order, respondents 2 to 6 went in appeal, which the Division Bench disposed of, directing a final decision to be taken in the writ petition.

3. Heard Advocate Maitreyi S.Hegde for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, assisted by Advocate Adarsh Tripathi, for respondents 2 to 6 and Assistant Solicitor General Advocate S.Manu, for the first respondent.

4. Adv.Maitreyi S.Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the clause in Ext.P2 notification, imposing a precondition that the candidates should have appeared for CLAT 2021 PG programme and that selection will be based on the marks secured in CLAT 2021, militates against the fundamental right to equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 16. In elaboration, it is submitted that the offensive clause defeated the chance of majority of the aspirants, since only very few law graduates pursue post graduate course in National Law Universities, the fees in those institutions being much higher than in other Law Colleges. Even the fee for participating in the CLAT-2021 PG programme is much higher than the fee for admission tests conducted by other law colleges. By the offensive clause, the zone of eligible applicants is reduced to a small fraction, from among the multitude of law graduates aspiring for public employment. The offensive clause therefore discriminates between those having the financial capacity for pursuing their higher studies in National Law Universities and others like the petitioner, who opt to join law colleges with lesser fees. The selection process is hence liable to be interfered with and opened up for all candidates with requisite qualification. The decision Lt.Col.Nitisha and others v Union of India and others [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 261] is pressed into service to contend that the inclusion of a restrictive selection process amounts to indirect discrimination which the Apex Court has held to be a ground for interference.

5. Learned Counsel pointed out that earlier, the public sector undertakings like NTPC had resorted to campus interview as a mode of selection. The challenge against that process was upheld by the High Court of Bombay, through a detailed and well considered judgment in Sonali Pramod Dhawade and others v Central Bank of India and another [(2013) SCC OnLine Bom 525], Campus selection of candidates from few chosen Col