IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7616 of 2011 1. Rajesh Roushan, s/o- Ramsharan Kewat, r/o- village Neema Pandey, P.O. + P.S. Halsi, District- Lakhisarai. 2. Anil Kumar Bharti, s/o- Bishwanath Thakur, r/o- village Paharpur, P.O.- Mahnar Road, P./s.- Mahanar, District- Vaishali. 3. Bablesh Kumar Jha, s/o- Late Bhagya Narayan Jha, r/o- village Mohanpur, via Bassopatti, P.O.- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani. 4. Tripurari Kumar, s/o- Awdhesh Prasad Gupta, r/o- Balughat Road, Sultanganj (near electric office )P.O. & P.S. Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur. 5. Ranjeet Kumar, s/o- Gopal Lal, r/o- Barnwal Bhavan, Village Manpr, Mohalla Teli Tola (Pudina Khet) P.O.- Buniyadganj, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Gaya. 6. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, s/o- Awdhesh Kumar Biswas, r/o- village- Sonali, P.O.- Milikpailagargh, P.S.- Kadwa, District- Katihar. ………… Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur-842003, through its Registrar. 7. The Principal, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur-842003 8. The Registrar, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur-842003 9. The Training Placement Officer, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur-842003. ……… Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 5 24.08.2011 Six petitioners have joined hands in filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the sustainability of the notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure-1) whereby the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short “ the Board”) resorted to recruitment of Assistant Engineer(s) by way of Campus 2 selection/placement. Petitioners obtained B.Sc. Engineering degree in Electrical Engineering stream from Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology (MIT) in the year 2009-10. They raise objection to the recruitment/selection procedure by campus selection resorted to by the Board on the ground that the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the Board would be affording opportunity of employment to a particular class or classes of students ignoring the similarly situate other students/candidates. It is thus the stand that resorting to the said process of recruitment would militate against the cardinal principles of equal opportunity in the matter of public employment to all the citizens of the India as articulated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They have thus termed the impugned action of the respondent Board as ultra vires to the Constitution of India and/or wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. An intervention application (I.A. No. 4351 of 2011) has been filed on behalf of the students/candidates whose name figure in Annexure-1 whereby they were informed to participate in the interview scheduled on 9th April, 2011. A counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondent Board. It is the stand of the respondent Board that campus selection of the technocrats like the petitioners has been resorted to by way of a policy decision taken by the Board in 537th meeting dated 1.2.2011 and the subsequent meeting dated 10.3.2011. 3 Considering the urgent need of hands in transmission and distribution and to maintain the day to day affairs of the Board, such decision has been taken. The aforesaid policy decision taken by the Board has been enclosed as Annexure-C/1 series to the counter affidavit. The respondents have stated that there is no abandonment of the conventional selection pattern/procedure. There is no policy decision to give up the conventional selection process for all time to come. In the past also, the Board has been following the selection process based on advertisement but considering the emergent need, the campus selection has been opted to get quality hands without compromising on the merits of the candidates. It is also the stand of the respondents that in making such campus selection, the Board has ensured that there is no violation of any norms of reservation/roster. The respondents have highlighted that presently the Board is undergoing a critical situation inasmuch as it may reach on the verge of collapse in case the acute shortages of hands are not made up. It is also the stand of the respondents that the policy decision taken in this regard to meet the emergent situation is not under challenge. The Board is competent to decide the methodology of recruitment. To allay the apprehension or assumption of the candidates like the petitioners, it has been stated that campus selection is in addition to the usual mode of recruitment through advertisement, written examination and tests like computer literacy test etc. The object of the policy decision taken by the 4 Board is not to exclude the pass out of the Institute like the petitioners who can always apply for future advertised vacancies. The decision of campus selection is not to the exclusion and discrimination of the others as traditional mode of recruitment has not been abandoned. The respondents have highlighted the importance of human resources policy which plays a key role in the success of an organization. Respondents have also highlighted that realizing the importance of human resource and urgent need, the governmental organizations such N.T.P.C., H.P.C.L., I.O.C. and the Nationalised Banks have also resorted to the selection process in India by campus selection which provide an edge to the employer in terms of search for young/fresh, up-to-date and career oriented students without losing time. The respondent(s) have stressed that the mode of recruitment of campus selection is not in derogation to the guidelines of the AICTE and/or University Grants Commission. The shortlisted candidates shall be offered appointment only if they pass the Engineering Degree course in first division. The respondents have adopted transparency as regards the eligibility criteria fixed for recruitment. It has been highlighted that the employer, in deciding the mode of selection and number of vacancies and the criteria for selection, is the best judge of its need. The interview for recruitment have already been concluded. In order to maintain transparency and efficiency, the Interview Board constituted for the purpose, included representative of the Science and Technology 5 Department of the Government of Bihar. Only limited top rank students of general as well as various reserved categories were interviewed as per the decision of the employer to meet the emergent need without losing time and compromising on the quality of the personnel. The final selection shall be made subject to the selected candidates clearing the course in first division. The respondents have also taken a stand that by adopting the aforesaid methodology of campus recruitment, students of four Engineering Colleges in the State of Bihar have been visited for making such campus selection. In paragraph No. 16, they have stated as under “16. That is further stated that the Bihar State Electricity Board had always provided opportunity to all in public employment. This time it is emergent situation which compelled for campus interview. By now the selection by campus interview has globally yielded positive results in India also. It is reiterated even at the risk of repetition, in India it used be followed initially not only by the MNCs, I.T. and Software Industries but now public sector undertakings like NTPC, I.O.C., and nationalized Banks etc. are selecting personnel through Campus selection.” As about the procedure adopted in making campus recruitment/selection, the respondents have averred that Principals of all the four Engineering Colleges in the State of Bihar were requested to send the list of top ranking students of unreserved as well as reserved categories. The shortlisted candidates were interview by a team of experts with representatives of the Government Department. The Training and Placement Officers of different colleges had also participated and only limited top rank students of different categories were 6 interviewed. Learned counsel for the respondent Board has argued that similar issue was raised in a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7200 of 2000 (Pravin Kumar versus The State of Bihar & Ors). A Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 26.7.2011, after hearing the parties at length, dismissed the writ petition wherein such procedure of campus selection was impugned on diverse counts. Judgment of the learned Division Bench is enclosed as Annexure-C/4 to the supplementary counter affidavit. On a close perusal of the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7200 of 2000, it appears that the issue with regard to mode and manner of recruitment of Junior Engineers from a very restricted category of candidates of the outgoing batch of the Government Polytechnics of Bihar was raised on somewhat identical grounds. The ground on which the petitioner of the said case sought to challenge the mode of selection has been noticed in paragraph 3 of the judgment. The stand of the respondent Board was taken note of in paragraph 4. On a consideration of the rival submissions, the aforesaid judgment records as under in paragraphs 8 and 9: “8. We now pass on to another aspect of the matter, whether or not the solution to meet the emergent situation is arbitrary, or just and reasonable. Campus selection is really given to the commercial world on the non-governmental side or the instrumentalities of the government, i.e. private entrepreneurs, who are not „State‟ within the meaning of Article 12 of the 7 Constitution, and are not required to conform to the constitutional norms. But then the Board was earlier, and would now in far greater measure under the two Acts in question, be discharging duties which will be essentially commercial in nature. Law is well settled that all public employment in this Country is a national wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same which is possible only if the vacancies are given wide publicity, so that every eligible person has the opportunity to apply for consideration in accordance with law. We must emphasise that this principle of law requiring strict adherence to the constitutional norms with respect to public employment apply with all its rigours to government offices exercising sovereign and regal functions. In view of the scheme of the Central Act and the Bihar Act, we are convinced that the Board is discharging duties which are essentially of commercial nature, and is scheduled to be in line for competition with the private sector. Law is equally well settled that administration must be allowed some play in the joints. The requisite latitude must be allowed to the Board to make appointments as per its own volition, which may not strictly conform to the constitutional norms, but should surely be just and reasonable and on objective basis so that it may have the requisite leeway to make a reasonable classification which must be founded on a reasonable differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned action. 9. The classic enunciation of law in this behalf in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Krishna vs. Justice Tendolkar and others, AIR 1958 SC 538, may be recalled. Paragraph 11 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: 11. The principal ground urged in support of the contention as to the invalidity of the Act and/or the notification is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution. In Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, 1955-I SCR 1045S) AIR 1955 Sc 191) (A) a Constitution Bench of seven Judges of this Court at pages 1048-49 (of SCR): (at p. 193 of AIR) explained the true meaning and 8 scope of Article 14 as follows: “The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution having come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases, namely, Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 869: (AIR 1951 SC 41) (B) State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, 1951 SCR 632, (AIR 1951SC 318) (C) State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284: (AIR 1952 SC 75) (D) Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435: (AIR 1952 SC 123) (E) Lachmandas Kewalram v. State of Bombay, 1952 SCR 710: (AIR 1952 sc 235) (F) Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad. 1953 SCR 589: (AIR 1953 SC 156) (G) and Habeeb Mohamad v. State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 661: (AIR 1953 1953 SC 287) (H). It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the article in question. It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbids reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.” Learned Division Bench also noticed the special feature of 9 such campus selection in paragraph 11. On a consideration of all the relevant materials/pleadings on record, learned Division Bench did not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the respondent Board for recruitment of personnel by way of campus selection is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition. The respondents have stated in counter affidavits that the traditional mode of recruitment by open advertisement has not been given a complete go by. The present mode has been adopted in order to meet the emergent situation with which the Board is presently faced. The petitioner, therefore, will have an opportunity to compete with others for being selected when the respondent board shall advertise the post for recruiting personnel(s). Petitioners have not assailed the policy decision taken in this regard by the respondent Board. In view of the reasonings assigned in the judgment of the learned Division Bench in the writ petition raising similar/identical issues, this Court does not find any merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)