C.W.P. No.10444 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10444 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 2009 Binay Kumar Diwana and others .....PETITIONERS Versus NHPC Limited and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 are working on the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) and petitioner No.2 is working on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the respondent-Corporation. They have filed the instant petition for quashing the amendment dated 21.8.2007 made by the respondent-Corporation in the Recruitment Rules, whereby Rule 4(f) has been added to the aforesaid Rules. It is the case of the petitioners that Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides for following sources of recruitment:- “a) Promotion of existing employees from the lower scales who meet the prescribed standards. b) Direct recruitment from outside candidates or through Press Advertisement in Employment News, National C.W.P. No.10444 of 2008 -2- Dailies or local Newspaper, as the need be or through internal induction by issue of internal advertisement/circular for employees who meet the prescribed qualification, job specifications, subject to any instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard from time to time. (Government instructions placed at Annexure-II to these Rules) c) Through Employment Exchanges as per provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. d) Deputation from Central/State Governments or Public Sector Enterprises. e) Recruitment of persons declared as surplus by the Government and other Public Enterprises, etc. as per directives of the Central Government.” It is mentioned in this Rule that the Corporation can fill up the posts by resorting to one or more of the above methods. It is further the case of the petitioners that method (b) provides that the recruitment can be made to the posts by way of direct recruitment from outside candidates by issuing internal advertisement/circular for the employees also, who meet the prescribed qualification. It is stated that Rule 5.2 of the aforesaid Rules further provides that when a post is to be filled in by direct recruitment, including recruitment from the sources indicated at items (b) to (e) under Rule 4 above, the governing principle shall be to secure the services of the most suitable candidates to the posts. To achieve this objective, the method of recruitment shall be to invite applications by open advertisement giving C.W.P. No.10444 of 2008 -3- full information regarding the nature and duties of the post, qualifications, experience and age limits, prospects of promotion and other relevant information. Secondly, where direct recruitment is resorted to, existing employees of the Corporation may also apply for the posts advertised in the press provided they fulfill the prescribed requirements. Counsel for the petitioners argued that by the amendment dated 21.8.2007, Clause (f) was added to Rule 4 which provides one more method for recruitment, i.e., recruitment of candidates through Campus interview. It is the case of the petitioners that by adding this method of recruitment, the chances of the petitioners for direct recruitment will be diminished. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that by the aforesaid amendment, only one more mode to make recruitment has been provided, and it does not diminish the chances of anybody to get appointment by direct recruitment. It has been stated that the respondent- Corporation is visiting College Campus for recruitment only in accordance with the Scheme of Campus recruitment as approved by the Board of Directors. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the instant petition. In my opinion, by adding Rule 4(f), only one more mode of recruitment has been provided in the Rules. The said mode of recruitment cannot be said to be illegal or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is for the employer to provide in the Rules different methods and mode of recruitment. No rights of the petitioners have been violated. They are working on the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) and Assistant Engineer (Civil). Whenever a direct recruitment is made by advertisement and if the petitioners are eligible and C.W.P. No.10444 of 2008 -4- qualified, they can apply for the post(s), but merely because one more mode of recruitment has been added in the Rules, it cannot be said that their rights have been violated or their chances of getting direct appointment have been diminished. Thus, in my opinion, the said amendment is not arbitrary, illegal and violative of any provisions of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. October 26, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE