ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, Patna. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the Employment Notice No. 03 of 2013 issued by the Respondent-Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, Patna(hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment against the posts of Assistant Electrical Engineer and Assistant Engineer(Civil) in the services of the Company to the extent it contemplates that selection for the said post would be made on the basis of their valid score in GATE examination. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the respondent-Company to either introduce a different mode of selection for consideration of the cases of the candidates for such appointment or to allow adequate time for the aspirants so as to enable them to clear the GATE examination. 3. The Company came out with the said Employment Notice No.03 of 2013 published on 16.9.2013 inviting applications against various posts including the posts of Assistant Electrical Engineer (AEE). The petitioners possess the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering. This is not in controversy that the Respondent-Company, created in terms of the provision as contained in the Electricity Act, 2003, has been carved out from the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board and is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Clause-3 of the said advertisement lays down the qualification and eligibility criteria, relevant portion of which are being quoted below:- “3.0 Qualification & Eligibility: a. Assistant Electrical Engineer: Full time 4 years’ B.E./B.Tech./B.Sc.( Engineering) degree in Electrical/ Electrical & Electronics/ Electronics/Electronics & Communication / Electronics & Instrumentation/ Electronics & Tele-Communication/Power Engineering with minimum marks as detailed in “f” (or equivalent) from a recognized University/Institute approved by AICTE. b. AE (Civil): Full time 4 years’ B.E./B.Tech./B.Sc.(Engineering) Decree in Civil Engineering/Construction Engineering with minimum marks as detailed in “f” (or equivalent) from the recognized University/Institute approved by AICTE c. ……………. d. ……………. e. ………….. b. AE (Civil): Full time 4 years’ B.E./B.Tech./B.Sc.(Engineering) Decree in Civil Engineering/Construction Engineering with minimum marks as detailed in “f” (or equivalent) from the recognized University/Institute approved by AICTE c. ……………. d. ……………. e. ………….. f. Minimum Percentage of marks for the post of AEE/AE(Civil) /RO Minimum Percentage in degree Engineering final year exam UR SC ST BC EBC 60% 50% 50% 55% 55% (g) The candidates with relevant qualification applying for the post of AEE/AE (Civil)/Revenue Officer, may also apply for the post of JEE/JE(Civil), as the case may be, but they will have to submit a separate application form with requisite fee.” 4. Clause 8 of the said advertisement lays down the Mode of selection which reads as thus:- “8.0 Mode of Selection: (a) For ACC/AC(Civil): i. Candidates would be short listed based on the valid score in the GATE examination. ii. Merit List would be prepared on the basis of valid GATE Score, Experience marks and Interview. iii. Weightage of marks obtained in the GATE would be 80% and out of balance 20%, 10% each would be for the relevant work experience and interview iv. Candidates with prior relevant work experience of 5 ( Five) or more years in any Government/Semi-Government Organization/PSU would be given maximum marks. v. No weightage would be given to experience below 2(two) years. vi. Marks will be awarded on prorate basis for work experience between 2 (two) years to 5 (five) years as per the following table- Work Experience Marks Less than 2 years 0 More than 2 years 3 and less than 3 years More than 3 years 3 5 and less than 4 years More than 4 years and 7 less than 5 years More than 5 years 10 5. The petitioners hold the qualification as laid down in Clause 3 of the advertisement. They, however, have so far not taken the GATE (Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering) which is held bi-yearly and they do not have, thus, any GATE Score. 6. The petitioners’ grievance is that while making selection earlier, the erstwhile Board never adopted a mode of selection as done in the present case to the effect that the candidates would be short listed on the basis of their respective GATE score. 6. The petitioners’ grievance is that while making selection earlier, the erstwhile Board never adopted a mode of selection as done in the present case to the effect that the candidates would be short listed on the basis of their respective GATE score. Their grievance is that it is just a fortuitous circumstance that the persons, who took GATE, have been made eligible for being considered for appointment as Assistant Engineer in the Company pursuant to the said advertisement. Their grievance is that had they been knowing that such would be condition for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, they would also have taken GATE; but because of subsequent decision taken by the respondent-Company, the petitioners are being deprived of even from being considered for appointment to such post. It has also been submitted that the minimum education qualification and eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause 3 and mode of selection laid down. Clauses 8 of the advertisement are in conflict with each other. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the advertisement, mode of selection in all fairness concedes that the Company is well within its jurisdiction to fix educational qualification for the purpose of selection to the post of Assistant Engineer and is also free to adopt a fair procedure/Mode of selection for the purpose of appointment to such post. He does not dispute the jurisdiction of the company to lay down the mode of Selection as contained in Clause 8 of the Advertisement, which requires GATE score to be the basis for short listing the applicants but at the same time he has submitted that the manner in which such decision has been taken by the Company cannot be approved of as the persons who are otherwise eligible for consideration on the basis of their educational qualification and academic achievements have been deprived of their opportunity to be considered, only because they could not take GATE before the publication of the advertisement. He submits that had the petitioners and other similarly situated persons been given some opportunity in terms of time, they would have also taken the GATE examination so as to make themselves eligible, at least to be considered for the post of Engineers as advertised. He submits that had the petitioners and other similarly situated persons been given some opportunity in terms of time, they would have also taken the GATE examination so as to make themselves eligible, at least to be considered for the post of Engineers as advertised. It has been submitted that it is true that several Public Sector Undertakings have adopted similar procedure for selection by short listing candidates on the basis of their respective GATE Scores, but referring to at least one advertisement issued by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, he submits that the candidates were given opportunity to take GATE examination for making them eligible for being considered for appointment in the said Company. 8. He submits that sudden decision of the respondent-company without any prior notice to the Public in this regard, to bring out change in the mode of selection, laying down that the GATE score would be the basis for short listing the candidates, is unreasonable, arbitrary and thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the mode of selection as declared in Clause 8 of the advertisement creates a class among the candidates eligible for appointment as per clause 3 of the advertisement, which is unreasonable and has no nexus with the object to be achieved. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-company, on the other hand, has submitted that the company is in dire need of efficient hands and such hands are urgently required. It has been submitted that the process of making selection on the basis of GATE score is prevalent throughout the country in many of Public Sector Undertakings. The conscious decision was taken by the Company to lay down this mode of selection so as to avoid the rigour of holding written examination on large scale, to lessen the chances of arbitrariness and introduce more objectivity in the process of selection. The decision to adopt the procedure was taken in special circumstance with immediate effect, keeping in mind the Public interest and urgent need of efficient Engineers in the Company. He has submitted that before the advertisement was published, the policy decision to lay down the new mode of selection was taken. The decision to adopt the procedure was taken in special circumstance with immediate effect, keeping in mind the Public interest and urgent need of efficient Engineers in the Company. He has submitted that before the advertisement was published, the policy decision to lay down the new mode of selection was taken. He further submits that the mode of selection as laid down by the Board cannot be said to be arbitrary or in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it is applicable to every eligible persons equally. 10. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties, I am of the view that the Company is well within its jurisdiction to adopt a mode of selection which does not hit the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I do not see any arbitrariness unreasonableness or irrationality in the decision of the Respondent company requiring that the short listing of the candidates would be based on respective score of the applicants in GATE examination and the merit list would be prepared on the basis of valid GATE score, marks on the basis of their respective experience and interview. Even if, the mode of selection is not disclosed in the advertisement, a recruiting agency is free to adopt a procedure for short listing the candidates for the purpose of selection which is not unfair and which is not contrary to the terms of the advertisement. Disclosing the manner and mode of selection in the advertisement itself, shows transparency in the process of selection. I am not inclined to accept the plea that the requirement that valid Score in GATE examination will be the basis for short listing the candidates amounts to creating a class among the persons eligible as per clause 3 and therefore, the mode of selection cannot be approved of and hits Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. GATE is a test which is held bi- yearly and is widely recognized in the country and its score is a well known basis for selection/appointment in various Public Sector Undertakings as well as for admission to various Higher Decree courses. I do not find unreasonableness in the action of the respondent-company in laying down the criteria that short listing of the candidates would be basis on their respective GATE score. I do not find unreasonableness in the action of the respondent-company in laying down the criteria that short listing of the candidates would be basis on their respective GATE score. The procedure, in my opinion, cannot be said to be unfair or in teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be faulted with. 11. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.