- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Can NTPC Prescribe Condition That...
Can NTPC Prescribe Condition That Aspirants Of Law Officer Post Should Clear CLAT-PG? Supreme Court To Consider
Anurag Tiwary
3 Jan 2023 11:36 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a plea seeking to declare the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT for applying to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) as unlawful, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution.A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a plea seeking to declare the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT for applying to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) as unlawful, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner Aishwarya Mohan, an aspirant to the post of Assistant Law Officer at the EO level in NTPC and an LL.M student at Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which had 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 lawful.
A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. of the Kerala High Court set aside a single bench order which invalidated the CLAT clearance condition.
The present SLP seeks the top court’s indulgence to define the scope and ambit of the expression “equal opportunity” guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. It argues that the High Court in the impugned judgment failed to test the selection process on the basis of the 'substantive equality test', which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in several landmark judgments, and instead tested it only on the basis of the 'formal equality test'.
The SLP further argues that for any executive action to be held non-discriminatory, it shouldn’t just pass the test under Article 16(2) but also under Article 16(1) as the latter covers a wide range of discriminations and the former is within its ambit.
The SLP further argues that the High Court has erred in stating that Article 16 only speaks of 'equality of opportunity' and not 'opportunity to achieve equality' while in the preamble the said aspiration has been laid out clearly. The petitioner states that the High Court could not have separated the inseparable bond between the Preamble and Part III of the Constitution which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court in several landmark judgments.
The SLP further submits that by making CLAT as the qualifying exam for recruitment in the Respondent entity/organisation, the authority has created an illegal classification whereby aspirants for the jobs have been divided into two categories - 1) persons who wanted to pursue LLM in the colleges coming under CLAT 2) persons who did not want to pursue LLM in the colleges coming under CLAT. The petitioner then submits that the impugned notification therefore “is essentially based on one’s capacity to spend for the registration fee of CLAT-PG. The classification has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved that is making appointments pursuant to the notification and choosing the best candidate.”
The SLP also argues that the method of appointment as set out by the Respondent authority i.e. NTPC is hit by ‘indirect discrimination’ as has been explained by the SC in Lt. Col. Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India (2021) SCC Online SC 261.
The petition was filed through Advocate Mohammed Sadique. Advocate Maitreyi Hegde appeared for the petitioner.
Case Title: Aishwarya Mohan vs. Union of India & Ors. Diary No. 34962-2022
