- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Gauhati High Court Upholds IOCL Law...
Gauhati High Court Upholds IOCL Law Officer Appointment Through CLAT-PG Rankings
EKTA RATHORE
13 Aug 2022 5:15 AM GMT
The Gauhati High Court has upheld an advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation last month for filling up posts of Senior Law Officer through CLAT-PG rankings.A single judge bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma stated that an employer would know best the type of candidate they require and there is no discrimination or arbitrariness in the employer prescribing the essential...
The Gauhati High Court has upheld an advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation last month for filling up posts of Senior Law Officer through CLAT-PG rankings.
A single judge bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma stated that an employer would know best the type of candidate they require and there is no discrimination or arbitrariness in the employer prescribing the essential qualifications required of a candidate.
It rejected the contention that the criteria is in violation of the equality of opportunity clause, as provided in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
"This Court does not find the action of the respondents to be arbitrary by not opening the field for all persons who have passed LLB or gone through CLAT in times gone by."
The petitioner argued that only a small number of candidates – who had attended the elite law institutions which are part of the CLAT consortium - could apply for the post, which deprived the petitioner and others, who are less fortunate.
He relied on the Single bench decision of Kerala High Court in Aishwarya Mohan Vs. Union of India which held that the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT for applying to the post of Law Officer in a PSU is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
However, the High Court noted that this decision was overturned by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which held that the guarantee of equality under Article 14 cannot imply that qualifications should be prescribed to make everyone eligible, without conceding the right to the employer to choose what it considers as the best qualification, given the nature of the job to be undertaken. It had further held that Article 16 of the Constitution only speaks of equality of opportunity and not opportunity to achieve equality, and is also different from equality of the results. The judgment had stated:
The Court also referred to Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Anit Kumar Das and Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade& Ors., where the Supreme Court had held that it is for an employer to determine the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess the same.
Based on the above, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title : ARIF AHMED v THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 54
