Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by four individuals challenging the recruitment policy of Central Bank of India dated 5 March 2009, which permitted filling of vacancies in officer cadre through campus interviews. The petitioners asserted they possessed the requisite qualifications and were eligible for appointment, but they filed the petition on 26 November 2012 after learning of other pending petitions raising similar issues. They contended that the campus recruitment method violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), and the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The respondent-Bank objected that the petitioners lacked locus standi as they had failed to substantiate their eligibility despite being called upon to produce documents. The Bank further argued that the petition suffered from laches, that campus recruitment was a well-recognized and transparent method used for a small percentage of total appointments, and that it was necessary to attract talent. The Court first considered the preliminary objection regarding locus standi. It noted that the petitioners had vaguely stated their eligibility and their advocate expressed inability to produce degree certificates due to paucity of time. Relying on D.C. Wadhwa (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, the Court held that a member of the public has sufficient interest to challenge an executive practice that is in flagrant and systematic violation of constitutional limitations, and mere non-production of educational certificates at the arguments stage could not lead to dismissal of the petition at the threshold. The rule was made returnable forthwith, and counsel for the respondents waived notice; the petition was directed to be heard on its merits. Thus, the preliminary objection was overruled.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 - A writ petition filed by individuals challenging bank's campus recruitment policy as unconstitutional and in violation of Uma Devi (3) case; respondent-Bank raised preliminary objection that petitioners failed to prove they possessed requisite qualifications and thus lacked locus. The Court held that mere inability to produce degree certificates during arguments could not be the basis to throw out the petition at the threshold, relying on D.C. Wadhwa (Dr.) v. State of Bihar where it was held that a member of the public has sufficient interest to challenge an executive practice in flagrant violation of constitutional limitations. Held that the petition must be examined on merits and the preliminary objection was overruled (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the recruitment policy of the respondent-Bank? Whether the petition should be dismissed at the threshold for lack of locus standi due to petitioners' failure to demonstrate their eligibility?
Final Decision
The Court overruled the preliminary objection on locus standi, holding that mere inability to produce degree certificates at the arguments stage could not lead to dismissal of the petition at the threshold. The petition was directed to be heard on merits.
Law Points
- Locus standi in public interest litigation not dependent on demonstration of personal qualification
- member of public can challenge unconstitutional executive practice
- mere inability to produce educational certificates at argument stage does not warrant dismissal at threshold
- compliance with Articles 14
- 16 and 21 of the Constitution imperative in public employment
