Effect of bombay high court verdict on campus hired student

campus recruitment / Interview method for public sector organization is declared illegal by Bombay High court

Sir could you please tell me it effect on students hired by other banks not by central bank......Also who has been hired in Feb 2013...

Thanks in advance

Para 3 of the judgement reads :-

3.This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

primarily, challenges the recruitment policy of the respondent–Bank

dated 5.3.2009 – of permitting filling of vacancies in Officers cadre

earmarked for direct recruits through campus interview or campus

recruitment process. The petitioners assert that they possess requisite

qualifications and are eligible to be appointed against the vacant posts

in the respondent – Bank, as per its recruitment policy dated 5.3.2009

court orders :-

57. The Petitioners' Counsel has justly relied on the dictum of the

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the  Ganga Ram vs. Union of

India, wherein the Court has observed the the State is legitimately

empowered to frame rules of classification of securing the requisite

standard of efficiency in services and the classification need not be

scientifically perfect or logically complete. The Court then went on to

observe that the classification, in order to be outside the vice of

inequality, must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which on

rational grounds distinguishes persons grouped together from those left

out. The differences which warrant a classification must be real and

substantial and must bear a just and reasonable relation to the object

sought to be achieved. As is noted in the earlier part of this judgment,

even the Parliament cannot legislate on the subject that would impinge

upon the fundamental right of equality of opportunity in the matter of

public employment. Secondly, no empirical data has been produced, to

persuade the Court that the policy of filling up of public posts by

resorting to campus interview method is imperative and has become

indispensable. We are not impressed by the claim of the respondents

that the said dispensation fulfills the tests of justness, fairness,

reasonableness and having nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

In absence thereof, it is not possible to countenance the argument of the

respondent – Bank that the distinction made by them of the class of

candidates is real and substantial.

58.For the aforesaid reasons, the petition ought to succeed at least

to the extent of declaring the stated recruitment policy of the respondent

– Bank dated 5.3.2009 as also the Circular issued by the Government of

India dated 22.2.2005, which provides for recruitment of officers in the

public sector banks against “permanent vacancies” on “regular basis” by

resorting to campus recruitment / Interview method and not by inviting

applications from public at large by issuing public advertisement, being

illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents are directed to forbear

from making any appointment against the permanent vacancies on

regular basis by resorting to campus recruitment/Interview mechanism

hereafter and if such appointment is made, the same will be non-est in

57.

The Petitioners' Counsel has justly relied on the dictum of the

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the

Ganga Ram vs. Union of

India

23

, wherein the Court has observed the the State is legitimately

empowered to frame rules of classification of securing the requisite

standard of efficiency in services and the classification need not be

scientifically perfect or logically complete. The Court then went on to

observe that the classification, in order to be outside the vice of

inequality, must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which on

rational grounds distinguishes persons grouped together from those left

out. The differences which warrant a classification must be real and

substantial and must bear a just and reasonable relation to the object

sought to be achieved. As is noted in the earlier part of this judgment,

even the Parliament cannot legislate on the subject that would impinge

upon the fundamental right of equality of opportunity in the matter of

public employment. Secondly, no empirical data has been produced, to

The selection stands declared unconsititutional