2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50895
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
AISHWARYA MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WA/742/2022
MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE, ANJALI ANIL A., MANU SRINATH
The judgment affirmed the employer's discretion in setting employment eligibility criteria, emphasizing that these must be reasonable and serve job-related purposes without constituting discrimination.
Headnote:
Eligibility - Employment - Article 14, Article 16 - The court evaluated eligibility criteria in public employment, emphasizing the employer's discretion in setting qualifications, affirming the validity of the selection process based on CLAT scores without discrimination.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent challenged an NTPC notification requiring CLAT-2021 for Law Officer applicants, arguing it discriminated against those who did not take the exam, thereby breaching Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court determined that the NTPC's eligibility requirement was rationally connected to the job's demands and did not constitute discrimination as the criteria applied uniformly to all qualified candidates.
Issues: Whether the NTPC's requirement of appearing for CLAT-2021 for Law Officer applications was discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that eligibility criteria set by an employer, particularly in a public sector context, must be reasonable and can differ based on job requirements, affirming the legitimacy of the selection process.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed; the impugned judgment was set aside validating the NTPC’s selection criteria.
JUDGMENT
Mohammed Nias.C.P., J.
The above appeals arise from the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C)No.30638 of 2021 dated 6.6.2022. 2. The facts leading to these writ appeals are as follows:-
The second respondent, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC Ltd.), invited applications for the post of Assistant Law Officer at EO level for its various projects/stations as per Ext.P3 notification which mandates an eligibility criteria as having an LLB Degree and to have appeared for CLAT -2021 (Common Law Admission Test 2021) Post Graduate Programme conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities. The writ petitioner, the first respondent in WA No.793 of 2022, and who is also the appellant in WA No.742 of 2022, challenged the above clause in Ext.P3 notification which makes the appearance in CLAT 2021 mandatory to be considered for the post. The first respondent/writ petitioner contended that the said condition in Ext.P3 resulted in a classification between the candidates who appeared for CLAT 2021 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 on behalf of the writ petitioner 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. According to the petitioners, therefore, Ext.P3 notification failed the test of the equality protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from being a case of indirect discrimination. It was also the argument 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. The petitioner also argued that Ext.P3 notification issued in the month of December 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. It was also argued that the second respondent that answers to the description of State should be a model employer and constitutional morality should be the under current of all their decisions. 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. The petitioner also relied on the judgments inLt. Col. Nitisha and others v. Union of India and others [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 261] and the judgment of the Bombay High Court inSonali Pramod Dhawade and Others v. Central Bank of India and Another [ (2013) 5 MHLJ 549 ] in support of her contentions.
3. The respondents in the writ petition however resisted the reliefs sought by pointing out that the second respondent is a Navaratna Government of India Company involved primarily in the power generation business and also foraying into other field such as renewable energy, power distribution, power trading etc., in view of the ever-changing and dynamic nature of the power sector in the country. It required the executive law officers who were recruited to have certain specific set of skills to understand the nuances of the power sector. Conducting an independent examination for recruitment of executives was a cumbersome procedure that would require years for completion and the delay would frustrate