LAWS(KER)-2022-7-70

NTPC LTD Vs. AISHWARYA MOHAN

Decided On July 25, 2022
NTPC LTD Appellant
V/S
Aishwarya Mohan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals arise from the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C)No.30638 of 2021 dtd. 6/6/2022.

(2.) The facts leading to these writ appeals are as follows:-

(3.) The respondents in the writ petition however resisted the reliefs sought by pointing out that the second respondent is a Navaratna Government of India Company involved primarily in the power generation business and also foraying into other field such as renewable energy, power distribution, power trading etc., in view of the ever-changing and dynamic nature of the power sector in the country. It required the executive law officers who were recruited to have certain specific set of skills to understand the nuances of the power sector. Conducting an independent examination for recruitment of executives was a cumbersome procedure that would require years for completion and the delay would frustrate the very purpose of recruitment. Thus, taking into account the sensitivity and urgency of such requirements, the most fair and rational mode of recruitment through an impartial and neutral examination like the CLAT was utilised. CLAT being a National Level examination by the Consortium of National Law Universities for admission to various reputed law universities in country which produces bright law candidates/graduates from all over the country, the ranking in such examination is being utilised by most of the Maharatna/Navaratna PSUs for recruitment of law executives. Documents were also produced to prove the same. In the year 2016 also NTPC Ltd. had recruited law executives based on the performance in the CLAT PG examination. It was also their argument that the appointing authorities had the prerogative in fixing the eligibility criteria and the selection process in the instant case was fair, uniform, equal and rational without any discrimination or arbitrariness. They also highlighted the uniform Industry Practice and contended that the scope of judicial review in such matters was limited.