Case Law Details
Ruchir Agrawal Vs Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that preference to Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants for the post of Director (Finance) cannot be treated as arbitrary or violative of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Facts- The Appellant before this Court was serving as an employee at Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent no. 2)) on the post of Chief General Manager (Corporate Finance & Treasury) which is a post below Board Level, since 21.07.2021. He filed the underlying writ petition being aggrieved by the advertisement dated 25.11.2022 issued by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (respondent no. 1) inviting applications for the post of Director (Finance) in IOCL. The advertisement provided preference to persons who were qualified Chartered Accountants over those who were qualified Cost Accountants.
Conclusion- The Director (Finance) has the responsibility of overall in charge of finance, accounts and funds management of the organization and is also responsible for evolving and formulating policies relating to finance and accounts as well as implementation thereof. Therefore, the conscious decision was taken to give preference to Chartered Accountants to promote all aspects of finance, accounts and funds management of the CPSEs and also to enable CPSEs to formulate policies which optimize the well-being of their business, finance and accounts. Hence, there is rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved.
Held that the Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant are not at all similarly placed as argued by the Appellant before this Court. They are governed by two independent statutes, and it is for the employer to arrive at a conclusion in respect of qualifications for posts, keeping in view the nature of job for which the advertisement has been issued. In the present case, the experts have formed an opinion to give preference to Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants, and, therefore, the decision taken by the Respondents cannot be treated as arbitrary or violative of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as argued by the Appellant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
