Supreme Court seeks response of NTPC, Central government on plea against mandate to clear CLAT-PG for law officer post

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a plea challenging the requirement to have cleared the postgraduate Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for selection as a law officer of the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC). (Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India and ors).A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath sought responses from the Central government and NTPC after hearing counsel for the appellants, Advocate Maitreyi Hegde. .The appeal before the top court arises out of a July 2022 Kerala High Court ruling that had upheld the condition mandating that applicants to the post of Assistant Law Officer at NTPC should have cleared the CLAT.The question before the High Court was whether, after having secured an LL.B. degree from any recognised Indian university with 60 per cent marks as qualification, the eligibility can be restricted to candidates who have appeared for CLAT-2021 postgraduate exam and whether this score can be made the basis for selection.The original petition was moved by a postgraduate student 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 claimed that she had the notified qualification of 60 per cent marks in LL.B. and registration with the Bar Council. However, the selection process was confined to candidates who have appeared for CLAT PG 2021..A single-judge bench of the High Court had held that the notification issued by NTPC was discriminatory and that the inclusion of CLAT clearance as a criterion did not have any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.The Court had deemed it fit to direct NTPC to accept the petitioner's application and conduct a selection test or interview for testing her eligibility for appointment as Assistant Law Officer.However, a Division Bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias CP had overturned this ruling, holding that the selection criterion was not violative of the right to equality..The present plea, filed through Advocate Mohd Sadique TA, stated that the High Court had erred by not seeing that the notification did not pass the substantive equality test. Further, the ruling negates what is stated in the Constitution's Preamble, by wrongly reasoning that Article 16 only talks of the equality of opportunity, and not achieving equality. "The classification [in the notification] is based on one's capacity to spend for the registration fee of CLAT-PG. This classification has no nexus with the object sought to to be achieved that is making appointment pursuant to the notification and choosing the best candidate."In this regard, the plea pointed out that Article 16(1) prohibits discrimination against backward communities when applying for public employment. As a result of criterion like the one imposed by the respondents, students, particularly those who graduated from government law colleges, miss out on lucrative offers "only due to their caste identity coupled with their financial situation," it is argued. The fact that the criterion has been there for a while is not reason enough to uphold it, as it would also mean that students would have to keep on sitting for the exam each year till they are chosen for the post, the plea stated.The High Court had not addressed the issue of indirect discrimination faced by those similarly placed as the petitioner, the plea added. .Advocates Aruna A, Anjali Anil A, and Uttara PV also appeared for the petitioners. [Read order]