IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.11.2010 CORAM: THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN WP.No.5554 of 2009 and M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 Chennai Petroleum Employee's Union Rep.by its The General Secretary CPCC Campus Manali, Chennai -68 .. Petitioner vs. The General Manager – H.R. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd (A Group company of Indian Oil) Manali, Chennai – 68 .. Respondents Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the recruitment of Management Trainees through Campus interview, by the Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Manali, Chennai vide respondent's proceedings vide HRD – 03- 048 dated 03.10.2008 and to quash the same. For petitioners: Mr.K.Anbarasan For Respondent : Mr.Sanjay Mohan & Dwarakish for M/s. Ramasubramaniam Asso. O R D E R By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner Union has challenged the recruitment process of the Management in respect of campus interview for selection of "A" Grade Supervisory. According to them, the procedure contemplated under the DPE guidelines is being not followed and even the selection of the management trainees also has to be restricted within a frame for the purpose of training. They would contend that by virtue of this selection process, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ management is trying to adopt the back door recruitment. They would further contend that as per the guidelines, such selection should be made only in rare and exceptional circumstances, where there are compelling reasons and with the prior approval of the Board of Directors. In this connection, the petitioner Union has made a representation dated 02.9.2008, to the General Manager to stop the recruitment of interview by campus interview. But the Management issued a letter dated 03.10.2008 in which the Union apprehension had been rejected. Challenging the same the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 3. The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit contending among other things that only to pick up the talented candidates from premium educational institutions, the Management decided to recruit candidates through campus recruitment. Hence, to get the best talented personnel in the higher grade and that too in pursuance of the approval of the Board, the selection process is being conducted and recruited. Further they would also contend that there are shortage of staff in the higher level category and since the management is one of the public utility services, the vacancies were required to be filled up with the best talented person. The Board of Directors, even as early as on 14.4.2004, approved the procedure followed for recruitment through campus interview. Subsequently, the promotion policy for non-supervisory employees was finalised by way of 18 (1) settlement singed on 05.2.2008 with the petitioner Union and other recognised union. As per the settlement deed dated 05.2.2008, there are no restrictions whatsoever imposed on the management from inducting direct recruits into the supervisory cadre. Further, they would contend that not a single employee or any person, who has sought for employment, has come forward challenging the policy. Therefore, the Union cannot have any grievance at this point of time as no individual right has been affected. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The petitioner Union challenges the recruitment policy insofar as it relates to the selection process for direct recruitment for Grade A supervisory cadre through the campus interview. 6. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent would categorically state that the petitioner union will not in any way be affected because as per the earlier 18(1) settlement, policy in respect of promotions have been approved and accepted and there is no embargo insofar as the selection through direct recruitment that too, by campus interview. Further, in the Board resolution dated 29.5.2000, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (DPE/Guidelines/II(c)/22) in respect of recruitment of management trainees in PSUs states that All PSEs should have detailed Recruitment Rules for recruitment of MTs by open competition and if considered necessary, keeping view the exigencies of dynamic corporate management, have provisions for Campus Recruitment from reputed institutions like IITs, IIMs, RECs, etc or through Walk – in Interview rout in rare and exceptional circumstances where there are compelling reasons and with the prior approval of the Board of Directors. However, detailed procedure should be laid down in the recruitment rules of MTs through these methods. As per the above guidelines, it is very clear that the detailed recruitment Rules have been formulated for the selection. 7. Further, the respondent / Management has also produced the Rules for campus recruitment as approved by the Directors. The said rules read thus: (i) The decision of sourcing the recruitment through campus interview would vest with the Managing Director ii) Campus Recruitment would be followed in rare and exceptional cases to meet urgent and specialised requirements of technical/ professional manpower. (iii) Campus Recruitment would be conducted at reputed institutions such as IITs, IIMs, NITs, NFSC, ICAI, ICWAI and Anna University. However, the number of institutions to be approached for campus recruitment would be decided on obtaining the prior approval of Managing Director. The list of above institutions would be reviewed periodically with the approval of Managing Director. (iv) While selecting the suitable candidates through Campus Recruitment, the Presidential Directives in respect of reservation for SC/ST/OBCs will be scrupulously followed. Therefore, it is clear that the detailed policy has been followed for recruitment that too, taking into consideration the cream and the best talented person for the institution. 8. In this connection the learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon the decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Federation of Central Government SC/ST Employees v. Kochi Refinieries Ltd., (2006 (3) KLT 9) in respect of campus interview and paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment read as follows: "9. Persons who sought to be recruited through campus recruitment form a class by themselves. Classification of those categories of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ persons as a group keeping in view of the administrative exigencies and efficiency cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. Campus recruitment has a reasonable nexus to the office to which such recruitment is to be made. Classification based on some qualities or characteristics of the persons grouped together cannot be found fault with, provided those qualities have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. Guarantee of equality does not imply that same recruitment rules should be made applicable to all persons in spite of differences in their circumstances and conditions. Article 14 and 16 though forbid hostile discrimination do not forbid reasonable classification and equality of opportunity in the matter of appointment. When state indulges in Business or in Commercial venture and there is cut throat competition new and novel methodologies have to be adopted lest they may lose in the race which will be against national interest. International Market Economy driven by strident advance of technology necessitated dynamics of technology management. In order to remain competitive in international markets, it becomes imperative that, public enterprises should have quality managers who know renounces of latest management technology, who can develop systems and strategies sounded for new business environment. Advent of globalization, process elimination of trade barriers and more sophistication and development around the world demand new strategies and methods to overcome competition, especially when State is indulging in commercial activities. Viewed in the above mentioned perspective campus recruitment, if adopted as one of the sources of recruitment, will have a rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. 10. Campus recruitment is a method adopted to recruit personnel from the campus even before they pass out of the college after making screening. If recruitment is resorted to after they qualify inviting applications best talents by the time would have been absorbed by their competitors. In selected areas, in our view, where respondent has to compete with other multinational and private sector companies in the present economic https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ scenario methods like campus recruitment can be resorted to. We are not prepared to say that the recruitment through campus recruitment adopted by the respondent is illegal unless and until it is shown that there is arbitrariness in the selection process undertaken by the respondents. Petitioners' grievance is against the method of recruitment and not the manner of recruitment. No candidate who is in any way affected by the campus recruitment has approached this Court challenging the selection process. Since the selection process is not challenged by any prospective candidate we have to take it that the process is transparent." 9. As the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and the policy has been clearly let out by the respondent, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ga To The General Manager – H.R. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd (A Group company of Indian Oil) Manali, Chennai – 68 1 cc to Mr.S. Ramasubramaniam and Associates, Sr. 84643 1 cc to Mr.K. Anbarasan, Advocate, Sr. 84413 WP.No. 5554 of 2009 GV (CO) kk 18/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/