RTI and Legal Notice on BSNL

Pl. refer to BSNL VRS scheme - 2019 para 8

As per para 8(ii) - there will not be any recruitment against VRS vacancies. So,
BSNL will save a lot of money by paying ex-gratia.

Q1. Please refer to the Constitution of India Article 19 (1)g

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

(1)​ All citizens shall have the right
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business

Article 19(6) in The Constitution Of India 1949

(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from
making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub clause, and, in

The condition of refund of ex-gratia is enforcing restriction on an VRS

employee from joining any other CPSE. This condition is violating the
fundamental rights as per Article 19(1)g. This condition is against public
interest also as the employee can not use the experience he gained in BSNL at
the expense of the public money, in another CPSE. Kindly provide the approval
for putting this unreasonable restriction and which is against public interest on a
VRS employee from joining another PSU which is violating the fundamental
rights given by the constitution.

Q2. Kindly refer to Constitution of India Article 16

16.​ Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

(1) There shall be ​equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State

The condition of refund of ex-gratia is enforcing restriction on a VRS employee

from joining any other CPSE unless the refund is made. This condition is
violating the fundamental rights as per Article 16(1). Kindly provide the
approval for putting this unreasonable restriction on a VRS employee from
joining another CPSE.

Q3. Pl. refer to ​https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119742469/ . High court of

Karnataka has held

25.In the instant case, the voluntary retirement taken by the petitioner
from SAIL is supposed to be represented in case of obtaining appointment
or re-appointment in any Public Sector Undertaking or Central
Government, has not been properly understood by the respondent.
Re-employment has to be understood in case it is in the s​ ame Public
Sector Undertaking in the same cadre or in any other Public Sector
Undertaking or Government, immediately after taking voluntary
retirement​. It is to be understood that remployment means "employing an
employed". But in the instant case, the petitioner has not been employed
by the same Public Sector Undertaking or any other Public Sector
Undertaking or by the Government, immediately after voluntary
retirement.

Kindly provide definition of “Re-employment” in the BSNL VRS Circular

2019. Does it cover any employment at any time in the future in any CPSE in
India by the employee on his own or by getting help by BSNL immediately
after VRS ?

Q4. A party to a contract cannot claim compensation for breach of contract

without actually suffering any loss due to the breach, as per Contract Act
section 73 and 75 and as affirmed by the Kerala High Court in State Of Kerala
And Ors. vs United Shippers And Dredgers Ltd (AIR 1982 Ker 281) which held

“18. That the party complaining of breach of contract and claiming

compensation is entitled to succeed only on proof of ‘legal injury’ having
been suffered by him in the sense of some loss or damage having been
sustained on account of such breach, is clear from Sections 73 and 75 of
the Act”.

Kindly provide the loss suffered by BSNL if an employee joins another CPSE.

Q5. As per Contract Act section 2(g), any agreement which can be enforced
only is a contract. As BSNL cannot enforce the refund on an ex-employee after
VRS (after the employee leaves BSNL), the undertaking signed by the
employee becomes invalid and illegal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bank Of
India & Ors vs O.P. Swarnakar” has held that VRS is governed by the Contract
Act.

Kindly provide approval for including the condition which is not a valid
contract as per contract act.

Q6. Karnataka High court has extensively dealt with VRS ex-gratia in a case
and it was held that ​VRS Ex-gratia is paid only to avoid future salary expenses
legalcrystal.com/935242 ​Karnataka High Court K Ajitkumar Gadiyar vs
Corporation Bank A Body ... on 10 August, 2011
Ex gratia payment. Payment made by one who recognizes no legal
obligation to pay but who m ​ akes payment to avoid greater expense ​as in
the case of a settlement by an insurance company to avoid costs of suit. A
payment without legal consideration.
Kindly provide the approval for inserting a “refund of Ex-gratia” clause in VRS
circular after paying the ex-gratia only to result in long term gain of BSNL

Q7. ​Even a partial ban of not joining another PSU is also illegal as per the
below verdict of Supreme court in Superintendence Company of India Vs
Krishnan Murgai, AIR 1980 SC 1717 which held Post service conditions are not
valid. Even partial condition is not valid. Inequality of bargaining power with
employees and harsh and oppressive conditions make the contract invalid.
“29.A contract, which has for its object a r​ estraint of trade, is prima facie
void..​ ..whether the restraint was general or partial, unqualified or
qualified, if it was in the nature of a ​restraint of trade, it was void.​
32.....If the agreement puts a restraint ​even though partial,​ it was void
and therefore, the contract must be treated as one which ​can not be
enforced​.
53....Not a Indian Decision has been brought to our notice where an
injunction has been granted against an employee a​ fter the termination of
his employment​.
58....If the covenant is to operate a​ fter the termination of services,​ or it is
too widely worded, the court may refuse to enforce it.
59....there is inequality of bargaining power between the parties, indeed
no bargaining may occur because the employee is presented with a
standard form of contract to accept or reject​...
As per para 59 of this verdict, the employees were forced to sign the dotted line
(otherwise they won’t get even the VRS benefits). Such a condition even though
signed can not be enforced. Kindly provide the approval for inserting this
condition of “refund of ex-gratia” on VRS optees, contrary to Supreme Court
verdict.

8. The Hon’ble Hyderabad divisional bench in the case S.Rami Reddy Vs

Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation
Development Corporation Limited, 2003(4)ALD609 has held there is no ban on
VRS optees to join any other PSU in open competition because it was their
fundamental right
 77. It should be noted that the impugned condition only prohibits the
petitioners from taking re-employment in Government
Departments/Public Sector Undertakings. They are n ​ ot precluded from
taking employment in private organizations or ​compete by way of direct
recruitment to public offices​.”
As per the above verdict getting employment in open competition is allowed
after VRS despite signing such an application. Kindly provide the approval for
blanket life-time ban on VRS optees contrary to law.

Q9. Conditions in employment contract were considered by a 7 judge

constitutional bench in the below case, and it was held any condition even
though signed will be void if it is violating any law.
Supreme court – Moti Ram Deka Vs East Frontier Railways, AIR 1964 SC
600 decided by 7 judge constitutional bench held.
“31....it is well known that if the contract is void, as for instance, under
section 23 of the Indian contract act, the plea that it was executed by the
party would be to no avail....”
Kindly provide the approval for forcing an employee to take VRS and take
away his right to future employment which is violating contract act section 27
and which is against public welfare.

Q10. ​legalcrystal.com/736656 Maganlal Rambhai Gandhi Vs. Ambica Mills

Ltd., Ahmedabad AIR1964 Guj 215; (1963)IILLJ522Guj
13. In my opinion, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, every citizen
has the r​ ight which is unqualified except by Clauses (2) to (6) of that
Article, to practice any profession or to carry any occupation, trade or
business in any manner he likes in ​any part of India.​ The issue of an
injunction restraining a person from serving any person or any firm
except that of the plaintiff during a certain period would clearly offend
the right given by Article 19 of the Constitution.
In ​https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165273/ Sodan Singh Etc. Etc vs New Delhi
Municipal Committee & ... on 30 August, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR
1988, 1989 SCR (3)1038
 25….. The guarantee under ​Article 19(1)(g) extends to practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. 'Profession'
means an occupation carried on by a person by virtue of his personal and
specialised qualifications, training or skill. The word 'Occupation' has a
wide meaning such as any regular work, profession, job, principal
activity, e​ mployment,​ business or a calling in which an individual is
engaged.
Kindly provide the approval to take away the fundamental right as per article
19(1)g of a VRS optee to seek a job in any part of India in any company he likes
By giving VRS

Q11. Supreme Court of India ​Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal
Corporation & ... on 10 July, 1985 , 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/​, a seven judge constitutional bench held
"No individual can barter away the freedoms conferred upon him by the
Constitution. A concession made by him in a proceeding, whether under a
mistake of law or otherwise, that he does not possess or will not enforce
any particular fundamental right, cannot create an estoppel against him
in that or any subsequent proceeding. Such a concession, if enforced,
would defeat the purpose of the Constitution. Were the argument of
estoppel valid, an all-powerful state could easily tempt an individual to
forego his precious personal freedoms on promise of transitory,
immediate benefits.​ "
Kindly provide the approval for taking away the fundamental right to
employment by giving some money as ex-gratia.

Q12. The ​Gauhati high court in Oil India Ltd Vs Dilip Kumar Goswami,
(2000) IILLJ 415 Gau has considered the DPE guidelines in the below verdict
“The employer cannot prescribe any term and condition in order to
restrict future avocation of an employee after retirement.
​ epartment of Public Enterprises
” 13. The clarification given by the D
in Column-5 shows that the Management of Public Enterprises have
been asked to exercise its own managerial discretion and prudence
while disposing of the cases of voluntary retirement. The clarification
further requires the Management to invoke the powers of office
 memorandum dated December 14, 1982, January 25, 1998 and June
23, 1998 (sic) issued by ​Department of Public Enterprises if they find
that an employee seeking voluntary retirement has opted for a job in
any other Public Sector Undertaking. This condition also appears to
be contrary to the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
An employee going on voluntary retirement and not taking any job in
any Public Sector Undertaking will be entitled to full benefits under
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, but the said benefits will be
restricted to certain amounts only if such employee takes fresh
employment after retirement. The clarification given to this effect
cannot be said to be in keeping with the spirit of the provisions of
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. The Company while disposing
of a request for voluntary retirement c​ annot discriminate in respect of
benefits to which an employee is entitled to on such retirement on
consideration that the employee concerned was going to take over a
job in some other company​. A bare reading of the guideline/circular
shows that this was issued ​without any authority of law and against
the basic principles behind 'voluntary retirement'​.​”
Kindly provide the approval for issuing the guideline in 2019 which has been
quashed in 2000.

Q13. ​https://indiankanoon.org/doc/647033/ Wipro Limited vs Beckman Coulter

International ... on 11 July, 2006 Equivalent citations: 2006 (3) ARBLR 118
Delhi, 2006 (2) CTLJ 57 Del, 131 (2006) DLT 681
47…… 2) Negative covenants between employer and employee contracts
pertaining to the period ​post termination and restricting an employee's
right to seek employment and/or to do business in the same field as the
employer would be in restraint of trade and, therefore, a stipulation to
this effect in the contract would be ​void​. In other words, no employee can
be confronted with the situation where he has to either work for the
present employer or be f​ orced to idleness​;
4) The question of r​ easonableness as also the question of whether the
restraint is p​ artial or complete is not required to be considered at all
 whenever an issue arises as to whether a particular term of a contract is
or is not in restraint of trade, business or profession.
Kindly provide the approval for forcing the VRS optees to remain idle after
VRS by ban on future employment combined with refund of ex-gratia.

Q14. ​Gujarat high court in ​Lalbhai Dalpatbhai & Co Vs Chittaranjan

Chandulal Pandya, AIR 1996 Guj held
“9....If it is not going to benefit the employer in any legitimate manner,
the court would not injunct the employee from exercising his skill,
training and knowledge ​merely because the employee has agreed to it​”
Kindly provide the approval for inserting the ban on future employment in VRS
scheme (which was introduced to save cost by BSNL) and forcing the employee
to agree to it.

Q15. Supreme court – Niranjan Shankar Golikari Vs Century Spinning, AIR

1967 SC 1098, ​https://indiankanoon.org/doc/452434/​ held
“This was a case of a negative covenant not to serve elsewhere for three
years after the termination of the contract. In this case the court applied
the test of what was ​reasonable ​for the protection of the plaintiffs'
interest. It was also not a case of the employee possessing any special
talent but that of a mere canvasser. This decision, however, cannot assist
us as the negative covenant therein was to operate after the termination
of the contract. Herbert Morris v. Saxelby(3) and Attwood v. Lamont(4)
are also cases where the restrictive covenants were to apply after the
termination of the employment. In Commercial Plastics Ltd. v. Vincent(5)
also the negative covenant was to operate for a year ​after the employee
left the employment and the court held that the restriction was v​ oid
inasmuch as it went beyond what was reasonably necessary for the
protection of the employer's l​ egitimate interests.
The result of the above discussion is that considerations against
restrictive covenants are different in cases where the restriction is to
apply during the period ​after the termination of the contract than
those in cases where it is to operate during the period of the
contract.”
Kindly provide the loss suffered or legitimate interest of BSNL if an employee
joins another CPSE after VRS.

Q16. ​In Supreme Court of India L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Consumer
Education & Research ... on 10 May, 1995 ; 1995 AIR 1811, 1995 SCC (5) 482
it is held
58. .... I​ mposition of conditions including the one struck down by the High
Court are, therefore, unconstitutional and Impermissible.
The “ban on employment” was quashed many times, the imposition of such a
condition becomes unconstitutional as per the above verdict. Kindly provide the
approval for inserting such an illegal condition in VRS scheme.

Q17. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in VRS case in The General Manager vs
N.Karthikeyan In Writ Appeal on 17 March, 2017
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157162291/​ held
16. The fundamental reciprocal obligations between the employees and
the employers will become enforceable so long as the relationship of
employer and employee subsists. Once that ​relationship comes to an end,
no further obligations other than those that are thrust by a Statute can be
enforced.
25…..a claim, which is b​ eyond the period of subsistence of jural
relationship of employer - employee, is clearly unsustainable.
Kindly provide how the refund condition will become sustainable after the
employee has left the employment.

Q18. Madras High Court V.Purushothaman vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on

17 September, 2002 held ​http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1367104/
10. … Apart from the fact that imposition of such conditions is likely to
affect the right of the citizen of India under Article 19 of the Constitution
to carry on his profession in any part of the country, the imposition of a
condition to the effect that the person is required to serve in a college for
the rest of the service career must be taken to be against the public
policy. ….
11. It is no doubt true that at the time he went for his studies, he had
given the undertaking​. But it has to be remembered that if such an
 undertaking would not have been given at that stage, possibly the first
and second respondents would not have permitted the petitioner to go and
join the course.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the condition as imposed by the third
​ ost arbitrary and has to be quashed.​ ….The
respondent is found to be m
writ petition is allowed.
Kindly provide the approval for violating the law as held above.

Q19. Gujarat – Sandhya Organic Chemicals P Ltd Vs United Phosphorous Ltd,

AIR 1997 Guj 177. as per contract act, service covenant beyond service period
is not valid.
“16....The supreme court has also ruled that under section 27 of the
contract act, a s​ ervice covenant beyond the termination of the service is
​
void”
Kindly provide the approval for violating supreme court verdict.

Q20.​Supreme court – Niranjan Shankar Golikari Vs Century Spinning, AIR

1967 SC 1098, negative covenant in a service agreement is void. Negative
covenant after termination of contract is not valid.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/452434/
“This was a case of a negative covenant not to serve elsewhere for three
years after the termination of the contract. In this case the court applied
the test of what was reasonable for the protection of the plaintiffs'
interest. It was also not a case of the employee possessing any special
talent but that of a mere canvasser. This decision, however, cannot assist
us as the negative covenant therein was to operate after the termination
of the contract. Herbert Morris v. Saxelby(3) and Attwood v. Lamont(4)
are also cases where the restrictive covenants were to apply after the
termination of the employment. In Commercial Plastics Ltd. v. Vincent(5)
also the negative covenant was to operate for a year ​after the employee
left the employment and the court held that the restriction was v​ oid
inasmuch as it went beyond what was reasonably necessary for the
protection of the employer's legitimate interests.
The result of the above discussion is that considerations against
 restrictive covenants are different in cases where the restriction is to
apply during the period ​after the termination of the contract than
those in cases where it is to operate during the period of the contract.
“
Kindly provide the approval for the condition of refund and ban on employment
after the employee has left on VRS.

Q21. Supreme court – Percept D Mark (India) Ltd Vs Zaheer Khan, AIR 2006
SC 3426, any condition after termination of contract will be invalid.
“55. On the pleading contained in the arbitration petition, there can be
no escape from the conclusion that what the appellant sought to enforce
was a negative covenant which, according to the appellant, survived the
expiry of the agreement. This, the High Court has rightly held is
impermissible as such clause which is s​ ought to be enforced after the
term of the contract is prima facie void under section 27 of the contract
​
Act”
Kindly provide the approval for the the illegal condition of ex-gratia refund after
leaving on VRS.

Q22.​Supreme Court of India : Bank Of India & Ors vs O.P. Swarnakar Etc on
17 December, 2002, Bench: H Sema, S Sinha on the topic of VRS
..... It is difficult to accept the contention raised in the Bar that a contract
of employment would not be governed by the Indian Contract Act. A ​
contract of employment is also a subject matter of contract.​ Unless
governed by a statute or statutory rules, the provisions of the Indian
Contract Act would be only applicable at the formulation of the contract
as also the determination thereof.
The above judgement makes it clear that the provisions of contract act are
applicable in VRS. Kindly provide the approval for violating contract act 27 and
restraining a VRS optee in his future employment in any other PSU.

Q23.In Madras High Court, in R.Babu vs Ttk Lig Ltd on 1 March, 2004, The
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice
N.KANNADASAN O.S.A.No.6 of 2003 and CMP No.693 of 2003,
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/447682/​ it was held
“6. ….. submission viz., violation of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act
with regard to the negative covenants of the agreement dated 1.5.1990.
Even though the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that
the relevant portion in Krishan Murgai's case relating to the violation of
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act was delivered by the learned single
Judge, viz., His Lordship A.P.SEN, J., who according to him dissented
with the majority of the two other learned Judges of the Bench and as
such, the same is not applicable, we do not agree with the said argument.
A perusal of the said judgment discloses that no ​injunction can be
granted against an employee after the termination of his employment,​
restraining him from carrying on a competitive trade. In fact, even though
the above proposition of law was laid down by the learned Judge, finally
all the three learned Judges held that the judgment of the Delhi Bench
was correct and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the judgment of His
Lordship A.P.SEN, J., cannot be construed as a dissenting judgment. It is
a case in which two learned Judges of the Bench did not dealt with the
question while the third learned Judge dealt with and also declared the
law. The dictum of His Lordship A.P.SEN, J., is ​undoubtedly the law
declared by the Supreme Court as contemplated by Article 141 of the
Constitution of India and it shall be binding on all Courts within the
territory of India​ and there is no escape from that conclusion.”
Kindly provide the approval to violate the law as per Article 141 of the
constitution and force an employee to remain idle after VRS by the condition of
refund of ex-gratia.

Q24. In Madras High Court ​http://indiankanoon.org/doc/16422195/ Unknown

vs M/S.Secan Invescast (India) ... on 1 February, 2013, the division bench has
dealt with restrictive covenants extensively citing more than 5 judgements of the
SC. As per this judgement, the condition not to serve any other PSU for life
time in any part of the world is absolutely not permitted as it is not reasonable.

“20. As per various judicial pronouncements, the reasonable restraint is

permitted and does not render the contract void ab initio. Reasonable
​ istance: suitable
restrictions can be placed in the following ways:- 1.D
 restrictions can be placed on employee to not practice the same
profession within a stipulated distance, the stipulation being reasonable.
2.Time limit:​ if there is a reasonable time provided in this clause then it
​ rade secrets:​ The employer can
will fall under reasonable restrictions. 3.T
​ oodwill​:
put reasonable restrictions on the letting out of trade secrets. 4.G
There is an exception under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act on the
distribution of goodwill.Reasonableness of restraint depends upon
various factors, and the restraint in order to prevent divulgence of trade
secrets or business connections has to be reasonable in the interest of the
parties to ensure adequate protection to the covenantee.

45. Referring to the decisions of ((1895) 2 Q.B. 315 Robb. Vs. Green,
AIR 1967 SC 1098 Niranjan Shankar Golikari case and AIR 1995 SC
2372 - M/s.Gujarat Bottling Co.Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co. and others, the
learned single Judge rightly held that the n ​ egative covenant of the
agreement can be enforced only during the period of contract and that
the same cannot be enforced after the expiry of the agreement period.​
We do not find any error or illegality warranting interference with the
order of the learned single Judge and this appeal is liable to be
dismissed.”

Kindly provide the approval for violating the law and enforcing a ban on future
employment of VRS optee after termination of employment on VRS by the
refund condition.

Q25. Karnataka High Court 12-Jan-2007 P.B. Durgannavar S/o Bheemappa

and C.D. Sanganna Gowdar S/o Dondappa Gowdar Vs State Bank of India WP
4662 of 2003
7. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following
authorities:
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Consumer Education and
Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482: To support the contention that where
the terms and c​ onditions of a contract involving the Government and an
individual are unreasonable, unfair and irrational - the same would be
open to judicial review. Secretary - Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari
Official Memorandum Sharma (1998) 5 SCC 87: To support the
 contention that an ​unconscionable condition imposed by way of an
undertaking from an employee by an instrumentality of State, would be
illegal.
9.....The respondent Bank having taken an incorrect view and having
denied the request for voluntary retirement, but later having relented,
was certainly a​ cting unreasonably in imposing a condition by way of an
undertaking to permit the Bank to recover salary and other allowances
paid from the date on which the petitioners would be entitled for
voluntary retirement on the basis of their original application.​ The salary
and allowances are paid for work actually rendered and cannot be sought
to be recovered on the basis of any undertaking extracted from the
petitioners who were not in a position to negotiate. In the light of the
judgments of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioners the petition
deserves to be allowed.

Kindly provide the approval for inserting the unreasonable, illegal,

unconstitutional condition of “ban on future employment” after giving VRS.

Q26 . Supreme Court : In Transfer Petition (civil) 8 of 2000 A.K. Bindal &
Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. On 25/04/2003, Bench: S. Rajendra Babu & G.P.
Mathur, it was held :
Page 16 : ..... a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee
ex-gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary
retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is
paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. I​ t is paid in lieu of
the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial
establishment and ​forgoing all his claims or rights in the same.​ It is a
package deal of give and take. That is why in business world it is known
as ​’Golden Handshake’​. The main purpose of paying this amount is to
bring about a c​ omplete cessation of the jural relationship between the
employer and the employee.​ After the amount is paid and the employee
ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, h​ e
leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating
for any kind of his past rights, with his erstwhile employer including
making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier
 period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding
enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has
opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount
paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be
totally frustrated.
The above judgment makes it clear that no claim whatsoever can be entertained
after the employee-employer relationship has come to an end. This is applicable
for employee as well as employer. Kindly provide the approval for inserting the
“ban on future employment in other PSU” after termination of employment on
VRS.

Q27. The condition of “Shall not be allowed to take up employment in another

PSU” which was the condition while giving VRS by PSU (unless it has some
relevance to suitability for employment on merit) has been quashed by 5 judge
constitutional bench way back in 1962.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114740127/ - Supreme Court held in Krishan
Chander Nayar vs The Chairman, Central Tractor ... on 23 August, 1961, AIR
1962 SC 602, (1963) ILLJ 661 SC, 1962 3 SCR 187 Bench: B Sinha, A Sarkar,
K Dasgupta, N R Ayyangar, S Das
11. .... But an arbitrary imposition of a ban against the employment of a
certain person, under the Government would certainly amount to ​denial of
right of equal opportunity of employment​, guaranteed under ​Article 16(1)
of the Constitution. ... We are, therefore, not in a position to say that the
reason for the ban, whatever its nature, ​had a just relation to the question
of his suitability for employment​ or appointment under the Government.
12. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner has been deprived of his
constitutional right of equality of opportunity in matters of employment of
appointment to any office under the State, contained in A ​ rticle 16(1) of the
Constitution. So long as the ban subsists, any application made by the
petitioner for employment under the State is bound to be treated as
waste-paper. The fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is not
only to make an application for a post under the Government but the
further right to be considered on merits for the post for which an
application has been made. Of course, the right does not extend to being
actually appointed to the post for which an application may have been
 made. The 'ban' complained of apparently is against his being considered
on merits. It is a ban which d​ eprives him of that guaranteed right.​ The
inference is clear that the petitioner has not been fairly treated.

Kindly provide the approval for enforcing the arbitrary ban on VRS optees
when all the VRS optees were suitable for employment on merit in any other
PSU which is a fundamental right

Q28. Kindly provide the legal opinion obtained by BSNL which has stated that
the condition of “ban on future employment in another PSU after VRS coupled
with refund of ex-gratia” is permissible despite a number of verdicts quashing it.

Q29. Inserting the same condition in 2019 which has been quashed so many
times by the courts is a contempt of court and also liable to be challenged under
article 32 (similar to the case mentioned in point no 27 above) as it is violating
the fundamental rights of VRS optees. Kindly provide the legality of the
condition of refund of VRS ex-gratia.

Kindly treat this RTI application as legal notice. If a speaking order is not
received within a week, I will be constrained to file a case in the Hon’ble SC
under article 32 (similar to mentioned in Q27).