Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 260 (PAT)

Alok Anand v. Union Of India

2006-03-24

V.N.SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Vishwamohan Kumar Sinha for the Coal India Limited and its functionaries, respondents no. 2 and 3. None appears on behalf of the Union of India, Respondent No. 1. 2. Petitioners, who are Mining Engineers and had applied for being considered for the post of Management Trainees, Mining in the Coal India Limited in response to the advertisement notice dated 14.7.1997 as also 19.5.2001 as contained in Annexures-1 and 4, are aggrieved by the orders of the Coal India Limited dated 9.2.2005, Annexure-7 as also cancellation notice dated 31st, December, 2005, Annexure-12 published in employment news, whereunder the selection process undertaken in response to the subsequent advertisement dated 19.5.20001, Annexure- 4, has been cancelled holding that the selection process initiated in terms of the advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure- 4 was not taken to its logical conclusion as before issue of the said advertisement neither any exercise for assessing the vacancies for recruitment was undertaken nor a reasonable ratio was maintained between the actual vacancies available and the persons called for interview. Further it was observed therein that departmental qualified candidates/diploma holders/Trade Unions were pressing hard for promotion of Non-Executive to the Executive Cadre as also for regularisation and they had shown their resentment-to the recruitment being undertaken pursuant to advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4. Besides the aforesaid factors which prompted the authorities of the Coal India Limited in not proceeding ahead with the selection process they also referred to in the impugned order instructions received from the Ministry to undertake Special Recruitment Drive for filling up the backlog vacancies for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was finally concluded in the impugned order that in view of the Special Recruitment Drive and demand of the Departmental Candidate for promotion to Executive Cadre there will be hardly any scope for proceeding ahead with the selection process undertaken in response to the advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure 4 which was cancelled. Having issued the said order dated 9.3.2005, Annexure-7 the authorities published notice dated 31st December, 2005, Annexure-12 cancelling the selection process undertaken in response to advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4. 3. Having issued the said order dated 9.3.2005, Annexure-7 the authorities published notice dated 31st December, 2005, Annexure-12 cancelling the selection process undertaken in response to advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order dated 9.3.2005, Annexure-7 and the subsequent cancellation notice dated 31st December, 2005, Annexure 12 on the ground that the two annexures 7 and 12 are violative of not only Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, but also of the Rules for Recruitment of the executives framed in compliance of the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, vide letter no. 3800 11/1/74-CAF dated 27.9.75, contained in Chapter 3 of Common Coal Cadre, published by the Coal India Limited in March, 1978. In this connection he refers to Rule 3.15 which reserves quota for direct recruitment. According to him, direct appointment of the Engineers as Executive Trainees in any discipline may be at E-1 and E-2 levels has to be to the extent of 2/3rd of the sanctioned vacancies as quota of direct recruits is 2/3rd of the sanctioned vacancies. With reference to the said Rule and the advertisement it is submitted that the appointment in the present case is to be made in the Mining Engineering Discipline at E-2 level and in terms of Rule 3.15, 2/3rd of the available vacancies should be filled up from direct recruits which vacancies according to him, cannot be filled up from departmental candidates either by promotion or regularisation. In support of the aforesaid contention, he has relied on the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of The Direct Recruit Class-ll Engineering Officers Association and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1607 £1990(2) PLJR (SC)23] and with reference to paragraph 21 of the said judgment has submitted that the quota meant for direct recruits cannot be filled up from departmental candidates and in the event exigency of the situation require that the quota of the Direct Recruits be reduced to accommodate the departmental candidates then aforesaid Rule 3.15 should be first amended after seeking approval from the Government of India as Rule for Recruitment of Executives was formulated in compliance of the Instruction of the Government of India dated 27th meant for Direct Recruits should be filled up from amongst departmental candidates. 4. On the other hand, Sri Vishwamohan Kumar Sinha, with reference to the pleadings filed by him, namely, the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit as also the reply to the rejoinder submitted that Rule 3.15 of the Common Cadre Rules does not apply to the appointments on the post of Management Trainee in the Mining Discipline and the quota of direct recruits has no application to the case of the petitioners. In this connection, he has also referred to Rule 3.2 which provides for Initial Recruitment of the Executives as also to Rule 4.10 which provides for Promotional Opportunities of employees from Non-Executives to Executive Cadre. 5. It appears advertisement dated 14.7.1997, Annexure-1 was issued for appointment on the post of Management Trainees in different disciplines of Mining, Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics, Sales Material Management, Welfare/Personnel by the Coal India Limited which was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in W.P. No. 3212 of 1998. In the said writ petition R.S. Garg, J. passed an interim order dated 18.9.1998, Annexure-2 and thereunder permitted the respondents to proceed with the selection process but directed them not to issue orders of Appointment. By subsequent order dated 18.8.1999 the aforesaid interim order dated 18.9.1998, Annexure-2 was modified by C.K. Prasad, J. to the extent that any appointment made during the pendency of the writ petition was held to be subject to the final decision in the writ petition which order was again reiterated by His Lordship under orders dated 30.8.1999. The State of Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated by carving out State of Chhatishgarh from within the boundaries of State of Madhya Pradesh and a separate high Court was created for the State of Chhatishgarh at Bilashpur. Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1998 which was filed assailing the advertisement dated 14.7.1997, Annexure-1 initially in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur was transferred to the High Court of Chhatishgarh at Bilashpur and was placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice of the said High Court on 3.10.2001 and His Lordship was pleased to pass an interim order staying issue of appointment letters to the Management Trainees. Later, the authorities of the Coal India Limited filed an application dated 12.12.2001 for vacating the stay order dated 3.10.2001 stating inter alia that the writ petitioner at whose instance the interim order dated 3.10.2001 staying the issue of appointment letter has been passed belongs to the Material Management Discipline and no recruitment is being made in the said discipline as the advertisement is for recruitment of Management Trainees in Electrical/Mechanical and Mining Discipline. Having noticed the aforesaid averments made in the application dated 12.12.2001 the stay order dated 3.10.2001 was vacated by Fakhruddin, J. of the said High Court under orders dated 21.12.2004, Annexure-10. 6. While aforesaid proceedings were being taken in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh/Chhatishgarh, in continuation of the earlier advertisement dated 14.7.1997 the Coal India authorities issued another advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4 for appointment on the post of Deputy Chief Medical Officer and Management Trainees in the Mining, Electrical, Mechanical Discipline in the scale of Rs. 10750-16750/-(E-2 Grade). Petitioners having become successful in the written test conducted in response to Advertisement, Annexure-4 were invited to appear in the interview which was held on 7th April, 2002 but when the result of the selection process was not declared, they approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9055 ot 2004 which was disposed of under orders dated 17.1.2005, Annexure-6 permitting the petitioners to file a representation before the authorities of the Coal India Limited, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who were directed to dispose of the same bypassing reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and the aforesaid impugned order dated 9.3.2005, Annexure-7 has been passed in compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, whereudner it has been held that the selection process initiated in terms of the advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4 was not taken to its logical conclusion as before issue of the said advertisement neither any exercise for assessing the vacancies for recruitment was undertaken nor a reasonable ratio was maintained between the actual vacancies available and the persons called for interview. Further it was observed therein that departmental qualified candidates/diploma holders/Trade Unions were pressing hard for promotion of Non-Executive to the Executive Cadre as also for regularisation and they had shown their resentment to the recruitment being undertaken pursuant to advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4. Further it was observed therein that departmental qualified candidates/diploma holders/Trade Unions were pressing hard for promotion of Non-Executive to the Executive Cadre as also for regularisation and they had shown their resentment to the recruitment being undertaken pursuant to advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4. Besides the aforesaid factors which prompted the authorities of the Coal India Limited in not proceeding ahead with the selection process they also referred to in the impugned order instructions received from the Min.stry to undertake Special Recruitment Drive for filling up the backlog vacancies for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was finally concluded in the impugned order that in view of the Special Recruitment Drive and demand of the Departmental Candidate for promotion to Executive Cadre there will be hardly and scope for proceeding ahead with the selection process undertaken in response to the advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4 which was cancelled. Having issued the said order dated 9.3.2005, Annexure-7 the authorities published notice dated 31st December, 2005, Annexure-12 cancelling the selection process undertaken in response to advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-14. 7. From perusal of the Rules for Recruitment of Executives framed in compliance of the aforesaid instructions of the Government of India dated 27th September, 1975, it appears that in terms of Rule 3.2 normally recruitment will be made at the executive entry level in different disciplines of Mining and Engineering (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Electronics) Personnel, Material Management, Sales and Marketing and others. Rule 3.3 provides for qualifications, experience etc. for recruitment. Rule 3.15 provides for quota reserved for direct recruits at the executive entry level viz. E-1 and E-2 Grades. The quota reserved for Direct Recruits in the Engineering discipline is 2/3rd of the sanctioned vacancies. The Engineering discipline necessarily includes Mining within its fold as both disciplines have been clubbed together in Rule 3.2(a) which provides for initial recruitment of Executive Trainee. Rute 4.10 provides for promotional opportunities of Non-Executive to Executive Cadre of the various disciplines including Mining discipline. 8. The Engineering discipline necessarily includes Mining within its fold as both disciplines have been clubbed together in Rule 3.2(a) which provides for initial recruitment of Executive Trainee. Rute 4.10 provides for promotional opportunities of Non-Executive to Executive Cadre of the various disciplines including Mining discipline. 8. Having perused the pleadings filed by the parties as also having considered the contents of the impugned order dated 9.3.2005, Annexure-7 as also the provisions contained in the Rules for Recruitment of Executives, I am of the view that for avoiding infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India 2/3rd posts of the Management Trainee in any discipline is required to be filled up from amongst the Direct Recruits and those posts cannot be filled up from the departmental candidates/ diploma holders either by promotion or regularisation on the pressure mounted by the Trade Unions. The Special Recruitment Drive for filling up the backlog vacancies for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates has also nothing to do with filling up of the aforesaid posts as it is well known that Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates will be considered for appointment within their own quota of backlog vacancies. In view of my findings above the impugned order dated 9.3.2005, Annexure-7 and the consequential cancellation notice, dated 31.12.2005, Annexure- 12 is modified to the extent that the 2/3rd vacancies in the Mining discipline which is earmarked for being filled up from amongst the Direct Recruits should not be filled up from the departmental candidates either by promotion or regularisation and as and when the authorities of the Coal India Limited decide to fill up the post meant for Direct Recruits in the E-2 Grade of Management Trainee mining discipline should be filled up from amongst those who are eligible for Direct Recruitment on such post. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order/notice dated 9.3.2005/31.12.2005, Annexure-7/12, this writ application is disposed of. No cost. 9. Before parting with the case, this Court with a very heavy heart observes that authorities of the Coal India Limited before proceeding to issue the avertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4 should have assessed the vacancies. Had they assessed the vacancies before issue of advertisement the grievance raised in this writ case may not have engaged repeated attention of this Court. 9. Before parting with the case, this Court with a very heavy heart observes that authorities of the Coal India Limited before proceeding to issue the avertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure-4 should have assessed the vacancies. Had they assessed the vacancies before issue of advertisement the grievance raised in this writ case may not have engaged repeated attention of this Court. Aforesaid aspect of the matter should accordingly be taken note by the Coal India Limited and the Ministry of Coal and Mining otherwise quota meant for Direct Recruits shall be violated leading to infraction of Articles 16 and 14 of the Constitution of India inviting interference by this Court.