The present plea, filed through Advocate Mohd Sadique TA, stated that the High Court had erred by not seeing that the notification did not pass the substantive equality test.
Further, the ruling negates what is stated in the Constitution’s Preamble, by wrongly reasoning that Article 16 only talks of the equality of opportunity, and not achieving equality.
“The classification [in the notification] is based on one’s capacity to spend for the registration fee of CLAT-PG. This classification has no nexus with the object sought to to be achieved that is making appointment pursuant to the notification and choosing the best candidate.”
In this regard, the plea pointed out that Article 16(1) prohibits discrimination against backward communities when applying for public employment.
As a result of criterion like the one imposed by the respondents, students, particularly those who graduated from government law colleges, miss out on lucrative offers “only due to their caste identity coupled with their financial situation,” it is argued.
The fact that the criterion has been there for a while is not reason enough to uphold it, as it would also mean that students would have to keep on sitting for the exam each year till they are chosen for the post, the plea stated.
The High Court had also not addressed the issue of indirect discrimination faced by those similarly placed as the petitioner, the plea added.
Source: Barandbench
