ORDER T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. The petitioner, a practising Advocate, has filed this Writ Petition styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation' praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 9 to ban campus interviews and to forbear the Central and State Government, Public Sector Undertakings in participating in campus selection for recruitment of candidates. 2. The petitioner states that there are thousands of Graduates and Post Graduates who are waiting for employment after completing their courses from reputed Universities/Institutions and have registered themselves in the Government Employment Exchanges. While so, the Public Sector Undertakings such as the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the fourth respondent, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., fifth respondent, the Indian Space Research Organisation, the sixth respondent, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., seventh respondent have resorted to selection of candidates by conducting campus interviews. The petitioner would further state that each of the Public Sector Undertakings have their own recruitment policy and they are required to recruit candidates only from the Government Employment Exchanges or by giving public advertisements through accredited media. The petitioner would further state that resorting to campus interview selection results in denying employment opportunity to the candidates, who have already obtained the necessary qualification and after having registered themselves in the employment exchange, eagerly waiting to be selected and by this method of campus interview, the right to secure public employment has been infringed and therefore, such recruitment should be banned and if already candidates had been selected, their selection should be cancelled. 3. The petitioner did not implead the selected candidates though a contention was raised that their selection has to be cancelled. However, subsequently the candidates who were selected sought for impleadment in the Writ Petition, which was ordered and the selected candidates have been impleaded as respondents 10 to 85. 4. The Writ Petition was entertained on 23.12.2011, to consider the moot question as to whether the procedure followed for campus interview by the Public Sector undertakings like that of the private institutions, is justified, inasmuch as there are chances of good candidates being discriminated and a candidate who got registered in the employment exchange may also not get a chance. The matter was adjourned by six weeks to enable the petitioner to serve papers on the respondents. The matter was adjourned by six weeks to enable the petitioner to serve papers on the respondents. When the matter was heard on 21.02.2012, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents inspite of service of copy of the petition and they sought time to file counter. The matter was adjourned by two weeks and in the mean time, status-quo with regard to the campus selection was directed to be maintained by the concerned respondents. The candidates who were selected prior to the grant of the interim order of the status-quo, impleaded themselves in the Writ Petition and sought for vacating the order of status-quo. They contended that they were selected purely on merit and on account of order of status-quo, they are unable to join the selected post inspite of having been appointed. It was pointed out that the Kerala High Court in Federation of Central Government SC/ST Employees (Kerala Cochin Refineries) vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd., in W.P.(C) No.17789 of 2004, dated 20.07.2015 dismissed a Writ Petition filed for quashing the select list of personnel recruited through campus recruitment holding that such campus recruitment would not offend Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. As against the said decision, the petitioner therein preferred appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4290 of 2007 and the appeal was dismissed by judgment, dated 08.05.2008, observing that the appeal is representative in nature and not by an affected person and as and when affected person will come, the matter will be examined on merits. After taking note of the said decision and the fact that only a few candidates have been selected pursuant to campus interviews and if the interim order of status-quo is allowed to continue, it will cause undue harassment to the candidates and the balance of convenience being more on the side of the candidates who have been selected much prior to the grant of order of status-quo, the said order was vacated by order dated 26.09.2012, making it clear that any appointment made after filing of the Writ Petition shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. 5. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 10.03.2015 and directed to be listed on 29.04.2015. 5. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 10.03.2015 and directed to be listed on 29.04.2015. On the said date, the counsel for the Public Sector Enterprises raised a preliminary issue about the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that there is no affected person for a particular interview before this Court and the issue cannot be examined by this Court. Further, it was pointed out that in the appeal arising out of the judgment of the Kerala High Court (referred supra), the Special Leave Petition was not dismissed in limini, but after grant of leave, the matter has been decided and thus, there would be merger of the order with that of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the policy decision contained in Government Order, dated 29.05.2000, permits recruitment of personnel through campus interview through reputed institutions and it is for each institution to formulate its own policy. 6. The petitioner appearing in person submitted that there are subsequent judicial pronouncements which would support his case on merits of the controversy, and therefore it was observed that it would be necessary to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition in the context of the orders passed by the Kerala High Court as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., whether in the absence of any prospective candidate who is affected by the recruitment process, a representative petition or a Public Interest Litigation by an Advocate would be maintainable. The petitioner took some time to examine the issue and make submissions before the Court. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 15.07.2015 for hearing on the preliminary issue. On 15.07.2015, the petitioner appearing in person sought for adjournment as he wanted to compile the list of judgments. The matter was posted on 29.07.2015, making it clear that no adjournment on whatever account will be granted on the next hearing. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 29.07.2015 and we have heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 7. In terms of our order dated 29.04.2015, the petitioner has to first cross the initial hurdle regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition and only if the Writ Petition is held to be maintainable, the question of considering the other issues would arise. 7. In terms of our order dated 29.04.2015, the petitioner has to first cross the initial hurdle regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition and only if the Writ Petition is held to be maintainable, the question of considering the other issues would arise. The preliminary issue was framed in the light of the decision of the Kerala High Court as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the Civil Appeal was dismissed. The question which fell for consideration before the Kerala High Court was whether recruitment of Management Trainees through the process of campus recruitment from reputed institutions, if resorted to by the Public Sector Undertakings, is violative of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court took note of the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, dated 29.05.2000, permitting Public Sector Enterprises in the country to recruit personnel through campus recruitment from reputed institutions like IITs, ITMs, RECs etc. The petitioner therein was a Federation of Central Government SC/ST Employees who contended that such recruitment through campus interviews would offend Article 16(1) of the Constitution, and it was contended that by selecting a few candidates before they obtained degree is against the statutory norms and guidelines issued by the Government of India in Office Memorandum, dated 25.04.1994; that the Recruitment Rules of the Public Sector Undertakings does not specify campus recruitment as a method of recruitment and there are no compelling reasons for resorting to campus recruitment for the post of Management Trainee in technical and non-technical areas. It was further contended that equality of opportunity envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution would be infringed if all the eligible persons are not allowed to compete with others for the said post; that no publicity has been given inviting applications from eligible candidates would offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that Public Sector Undertakings would fall within the meaning of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is bound to follow the various directives issued by the Government of India in the matter of recruitment. 8. It was further contended that Public Sector Undertakings would fall within the meaning of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is bound to follow the various directives issued by the Government of India in the matter of recruitment. 8. The respondents therein (Public Sector Undertakings), contended that campus recruitment is one of the selection methodology for recruitment to the post of Management Trainee adopted by the company and due to the competition among other public sector undertakings, private enterprises and multinationals, they are compelled to evolve new methodologies to get best talents well versed in latest management techniques and the procedure followed by them is approved by the Government of India and they have resorted to campus recruitment with all bonafides and in the best interest of the Public Sector Enterprises. It is further contended that the selection process was transparent and the reservation principles have been followed. While answering the question as to whether such method would offend Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, it was pointed out that persons who are sought to be recruited through campus recruitment form a class by themselves. Classification of those categories of persons as a group keeping in view of the administrative exigencies and efficiency cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It was further held that campus recruitment has a reasonable nexus to the office to which such recruitment is made; classification is based on some qualities or characteristics of the persons together and they cannot be faulted, provided those qualities have a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. It was further pointed out that guarantee of equality does not imply that the same Recruitment Rules should be made applicable to all persons inspite of difference in their circumstances and conditions. Therefore, it was held that in selected areas where the respondent Public Sector has to compete with other multinational and private sector companies in the present economic scenario, methods like campus recruitment can be resorted to. Further, it was pointed out that no candidate who is in any way affected by the campus recruitment has approached the Court challenging the selection process and since the selection process is not challenged by any prospective candidate, it has to be taken that the process is transparent. Further, it was pointed out that no candidate who is in any way affected by the campus recruitment has approached the Court challenging the selection process and since the selection process is not challenged by any prospective candidate, it has to be taken that the process is transparent. Thus, holding that the method of campus recruitment as such would not offend Article 16(1) of the Constitution and the challenge was repelled and the Writ Petition was dismissed. 9. As against the said order, the Employees Federation preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17538 of 2005, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 14.09.2007, granted leave and the appeal was entertained as Civil Appeal No.4290 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 08.05.2008, dismissed the appeal observing that the appeal is representative in nature and not by an affected person and as and when any affected person will come, the matter can be examined on merits, since it is a representative appeal. 10. In the preceding paragraphs we have set out the contention raised by the petitioner and the basis of the challenge to campus recruitment, we find the grounds urged by the petitioner is identical to that of the grounds raised before the Kerala High Court, which were rejected and the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed. Furthermore, the petitioner herein is an Advocate and he has filed this Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation and no affected person has challenged the selection nor the selection process. Thus, in our view the decision of the Kerala High Court as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would clearly cover the present Writ Petition and the only conclusion that could be arrived at is to hold that the petitioner being not an affected person in the selection process, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Nevertheless, the petitioner canvassed the case on merits as well, which was defended by the respondents and they have justified their stand by filing Counter affidavits. Therefore we proceed to consider the case on the other aspects focussed, despite the conclusion arrived that the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of maintainability. 11. Nevertheless, the petitioner canvassed the case on merits as well, which was defended by the respondents and they have justified their stand by filing Counter affidavits. Therefore we proceed to consider the case on the other aspects focussed, despite the conclusion arrived that the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of maintainability. 11. The petitioner appearing in person to support his submissions that the selection by campus recruitment is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors., reported in (1983) 4 SCC 582 . This decision was cited to state that there was no publicity given with regard to the vacancies, and no information was published in the notice board and therefore, the same is illegal. The said case arose out of a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the appointment of the Director of Industrial Statistical Institute. The petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court contended that he is more qualified than the selected candidate and therefore, the selection has to be set aside. In the background of those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that on the admitted position that publicity with regard to the vacancies was not made and no information was published even in the notice board allowed the Writ Petition. On facts, the decision does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner as the same arose out of a challenge to selection to the post of Director by an affected candidate on the stated grounds. 12. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Excise Supdt. Malkapatnam vs. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 , it was contended that by resorting to campus interview the chances of several candidates who are registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange will be affected. The said case arose out of an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and in the facts of the said case, it was held that wide publicity should be made about the vacancies by displaying the same in the office notice board and or announce on radio, television and employment news-bulletins etc. On facts, the decision is of little assistance to the case of the petitioner. 13. On facts, the decision is of little assistance to the case of the petitioner. 13. The petitioner relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Mahata vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. reported in 2005-5-CTC-161. The said decision related to a selection process initiated by the schools for recruitment and selection to the Post of Clerk-cum-Typist, wherein the Full Bench held that the person, whose name is not sponsored by the employment exchange has a right, as a candidate, in a selection process. The said decision once again arose out of a recruitment process and unsuccessful candidate approached the Court for permitting him to participate in the selection process. 14. By referring to the decision of the First Bench of this Court in Prof.I.Elangovan vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in it is contended that as directed in the said judgment, direction should be issued to fill up the vacancies by issuing proper advertisement. In the said case, the Writ Petition was filed challenging a Government Order that postponed the recruitment of 222 Lecturers against the SC/ST backlog vacancies to future vacancies without any time frame and direction was sought for to fill up those backlog vacancies before filling up any other vacancies. The decision does not in any manner assist the case of the petitioner. Equally the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prof.I.Elangovan vs. State of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.28217 of 2008, dated 13.10.2009, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said decision does not support the case of the petitioner, rather supports the case of the respondents, Public Sector Enterprises, wherein it was held that in service matters, Public Interest Litigations would not be maintainable in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 , which have been followed in Bholanath Mukherjee vs Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College reported in (2011) 5 SCC 464 . Thus, the decisions relied on by the petitioner does not lend any support to the case put forward. 15. Thus, the decisions relied on by the petitioner does not lend any support to the case put forward. 15. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, it is seen that equal opportunity to candidates is not denied as the number of vacancies at the entry level are advertised in the open market and filled through All India Written Examination and selection of suitable candidates as such through campus selection does not in any manner takeaway the right in the matter of public employment. Further, it has been pointed out that campus interview is not a substitute, but a supplement to the process of selection of best candidates. Further, it is seen that the entry level posts are advertised in open market, filled up through All India Selection and also through campus selection. The counter affidavit on behalf of the Ministry of Home Resources Development states that the selection process through campus interviews give the candidates an opportunity and exposure to choose their perspective employers in advance and if such campus interviews are discontinued, the Public Sector Undertakings would lose the opportunity to select best talents available in the country. Further, it is contended that in this modern day of competition, it is incumbent on the part of the Public Sector Undertakings to recruit the best talents available to keep phase with emerging situation and competition and placement through campus interview is a time tested method, well accepted with the academic circle, for employing the best and talented students and it is a healthy trend to secure placement for students, when they are on the verge of graduation. 16. The Indian Oil Corporation, fourth respondent while justifying the need for campus recruitment and pointing out that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, have submitted that the campus recruitment has been in vogue for over 17 years and by resorting to the said method, it does not infringe Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. As the classification adopted keeping in view the administrative exigencies is a reasonable classification under the category of such persons as a group by itself. 17. As the classification adopted keeping in view the administrative exigencies is a reasonable classification under the category of such persons as a group by itself. 17. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the 5th respondent has submitted that the entire vacancies is not filled up by campus recruitment and in addition to such recruitment, they recruit candidates by conducting All India Written Test and while doing so vacancies would be advertised in all leading newspapers, in addition to publishing the same in their website. It is further submitted that from March 2006 till 2012 they have recruited totally 2018 candidates out of which 1076 were recruited by campus recruitment and 942 pursuant to the advertisement and conducting written test. Further, it is submitted that they are following the rule of reservation in campus recruitment as well as in the open advertisement and separate rosters are maintained. The reservation followed by them, is stated to be hereunder: SC ST OBC-Non Creamy Open Advertisement 15 7.5 27 Campus Recruitment 16.66 7.5 25.84 18. The Indian Space Research Organisation, 6th respondent in the counter affidavit have submitted that for the recruitment done during 2010-11 out of 363 candidates inducted only 25 were selected through campus recruitment conducted in all the seven IITs, which works out to 6.88% of the total intake. With regard to the students selected from IIT Madras through campus recruitment only four students were selected and appointed during 2011 and the percentage reference to the over all intake is only 1.10%. It is further submitted that vacancies are advertised in all dailies and employment news as also in their official website to enable the aspirants to submit their application on line. The details of the number of candidates who responded the advertisement for recruitment of Scientist/Engineer under Schedule Caste category with B.E./B.Tech degree during the year 2011-12 is as per the following statement. Sl.No Year Number of Candidates applied on-lin Total Electronics & Commn. Mechanical Computer Science 1. 2011 73,596 26,247 55,594 1,55,437 2. 2012 86,335 33,927 -- 1,20,262 19. The details of the number of candidates who responded the advertisement for recruitment of Scientist/Engineer under Schedule Caste category with B.E./B.Tech degree during the year 2011-12 is as per the following statement. Sl.No Year Number of Candidates applied on-lin Total Electronics & Commn. Mechanical Computer Science 1. 2011 73,596 26,247 55,594 1,55,437 2. 2012 86,335 33,927 -- 1,20,262 19. The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu has been impleaded as the eighth respondent and in their counter affidavit they seek for dismissal of the Writ Petition as against them and to delete them from array of respondents on the ground that all the recruitments to the State Government are conducted either through TNPSC or TRB and the Government of Tamil Nadu is not selecting candidates on campus interview basis for the Government departments. 20. The IIT Madras, in its counter affidavit filed through its Registrar, while seeking to sustain the method of recruitment through campus interviews submits that it is a healthy trend to secure placement for students when they are in the verge of graduation and campus interviews are held to bring in the outside world the latent talent of the students and student community have been constantly voicing their appreciation and there has been no complaints whatsoever. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the Seventh respondent, Hindustan Aeronautic Ltd submitted that when an Employees Union challenged the selection through campus interview in the Chennai Petroleum Corporation in W.P.No.5554 of 2009 in the case of Chennai Petroleum Employees Union vs. General Manager, HR, Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a learned Single Judge of this Court referring to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refinary Ltd (Supra), dismissed the Writ Petition. 22. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 , with regard to the maintainability of PIL. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that generally a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others. 23. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the method of campus recruitment has been in vogue for over a decade, and the process has worked well and there has been no complaint by any candidate. 23. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the method of campus recruitment has been in vogue for over a decade, and the process has worked well and there has been no complaint by any candidate. Premier education institutions like IIT have certified that students have to undergo rigorous test and interview process conducted by the recruiting organisation to be successful. That apart the student community have been appreciative of such process. Furthermore, it is not as if all vacancies are filled up by campus recruitment. We fully endorse the stand taken by the public undertakings that in a present day scenario they have to compete with multinational private companies and other public sector units and get the best talent and one such method which has been time tested is to go to the place (institution) where talent pool is available. The principle appears to be “catch them early”. We find nothing arbitrary or unreasonable nor does it in any manner infringes or impinges into any of the Constitutional guarantees. 24. For all the above reasons we hold that the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be acceded to and the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.