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.
Source: Barandbench
