Patna High Court stays Bihar Mining Corp recruitment notice seeking only CNLU graduates as law officers

The Patna High Court last week stayed the recruitment process for law officers of the Bihar Mining Corporation Limited, which had preferred only graduates from Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) for the post [Saurav Narayan v. State of Bihar]..Justice PB Bajanthri asked the petitioner to place on record the rules of recruitment and the executive order before the next date of hearing while granting a stay."The rules of recruitment to the post of Law Officer or executive order has not been placed on record. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to produce the same before the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited shall not proceed with the process of recruitment to the post of Law Officer till next date of hearing," the order stated..The petitioner, a graduate of Delhi University's Law Centre-I, had moved the High Court seeking an order directing the immediate revocation of an offer letter by the Corporation to the Registrar of CNLU seeking a list of ten law graduates from the University for appointment.He also sought a direction for fresh initiation of an recruitment process which would be open to all candidates irrespective of their university..The petitioner stated that he had made a representation to the CEO of the Corporation in order to address this issue. However, no action was taken by them. Thus, the High Court was moved on the ground that the procedure adopted was biased and selective. It was stated that the same was violative of Articles 15 of the Constitution as it was discriminatory to all law graduates other than those belonging to CNLU.It was submitted that the same was also in contravention of Article 16 of the Constitution, which emphasised on the equality of opportunity in matters of public appointment.Further, the procedure was said to be in contravention of the right to livelihood of all law graduates enshrined in Article 21 and was maliciously providing benefit only to law graduates from a particular university, which was violative of Article 14..While ordering a stay, the Court listed the case for further hearing on March 8..Advocate Vishal Kumar Singh appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by government advocate Gyan Prakash Ojha..[Read Order]