[NTPC law officer selection] Competence not fiefdom of NLU grads: Kerala High Court strikes down need for CLAT clearance

The Kerala High Court recently held that the need for applicants to compulsorily clear the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) to be eligible for the post of Assistant Law Officer at National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India [Aishwarya Mohan v Union of India & Ors]..Justice VG Arun held that the notification issued by NTPC restricting the post to only those who had cleared the CLAT 2021 postgraduate examination conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU), is discriminatory."As long as the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity to the citizens, the State and its instrumentalities have a corresponding duty to ensure such opportunity to all. The above discussion leads me to the only conclusion that (the NTPC) notification, insofar as it confines the selection process to only candidates who had participated in the CLAT-2021 PG programme, violates Article 16 of the Constitution of India," the Court ruled..There is no logical basis for the assumption that professionalism and competence is the fiefdom of only those passing from elite institutions.Kerala High Court.The Court discarded the contention that those who graduate from NLUs have more skill and knowledge than other law graduates and asserted that even if that were the case, it is no reason to deny a level playing field to the others. "There is no logical basis for the assumption that professionalism and competence is the fiefdom of only those passing from elite institutions. The process now adopted is more like a walkover to the finals for a chosen few, without competing in the preliminaries," the judgment stated..The Court was considering a petition moved by a postgraduate student who is currently pursuing her LL.M. at the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). The University is not a part of the Consortium of National Law Universities, meaning that she never had to appear for CLAT-PG.A notification calling for applicants to the post of Assistant Law Officer was issued by the NTPC. The petitioner claims to have the notified qualification of 60 per cent marks in LL.B. and registration with the Bar Council.However, it was pointed out that the selection process was confined to candidates who have appeared for CLAT PG 2021, which prompted the petitioner to approach the Court..In a previous interim order, the Court had opined that, "even if the CLAT exam conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities is capable of selecting the brightest students, that is no justification for thwarting the career prospects of law graduates like the petitioner."This order was challenged by the respondent NTPC, but the Division Bench directed the single-judge to take a final decision on the issue..Advocate Maitreyi Sachdananda Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, argued that being a public sector undertaking falling within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution, NTPC cannot shut out the chances of persons like the petitioner, merely for the reason that she is pursuing her studies at a non-NLU.Moreover, she argued that having such a selection criterion militates against the fundamental right to equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 16..Solicitor General for India Tushar Mehta, assisted by Advocate Adarsh Tripathi and Assistant Solicitor General S Manu, countered the arguments on behalf of the respondents.Mehta said that the additional criteria of qualifying CLAT was incorporated because it was found to be the most suitable method for assessing the skill set required of candidates. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the employer to fix eligibility criteria and there is limited scope for judicial interference in such matters, he contended..The Court disagreed with the respondents. It noted that the challenge is not against qualification or eligibility, but focused on the selection process, on the ground that the incorporation of the restrictive selection criteria is nothing but indirect discrimination.Justice Arun pointed out that out of the 1,721 law colleges in India, only 23 are members of the Consortium of National Law Universities. "The argument that, apart from law graduates passing out from NLUs, graduates from other law colleges would also have appeared for the CLAT 2021 PG programme, cannot also be countenanced, since such candidates would only be a minuscule minority among the law graduates," the Court held.Moreover, the test was conducted much prior to the issuance of NTPC's notification and law students cannot be expected to appear for CLAT just in case it will be a criterion for a job they may aspire to in the future, it was noted.Further, it was highlighted that CLAT is focused on academics and not assessment of the skill set expected of future law officers, leading to the conclusion that the inclusion of CLAT clearance as a criterion has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved..Having held so, rather than upsetting the whole selection process, the Court saw it fit to direct the NTPC to accept the petitioner's application and conduct a selection test or interview for testing her eligibility for appointment as Assistant Law Officer..[Read Judgment]