Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 225 (CAL)

Sanjay Perveen v. Coal India Ltd.

2010-03-02

I.P.MUKERJI

body2010
JUDGMENT I.P. Mukerji, J. 1. THIS writ challenges a promotional order dated 18th October 2006. The Writ petitioner's grievance is confined to the fact that In the list of promotees from E3 grade of the Respondent No. 1 to its E4 grade, he ought to have been included. He does not claim that any promotion should be cancelled. His case is founded on a recommendation of a committee of the respondent No, 1 dated 22nd September, 2000 regarding inter alia promotion of the officers who have passed or will pass the Mine manager's examination with first class while working in the 2nd Class channel in E2, E3, E4 and E5 grade. The substance of the recommendation is inter alia that those working in "2nd Class stream in the E3 grade of the respondent No. 1 who have obtained a first Class Mines Manager Certificate of Competency (MMCC) would be promoted to the E4 grade." On this basis, admittedly, all the persons mentioned in the order dated 18th October, 2006 were promoted to the post of E4 grade in "1st Class channel". 2. IN all respects, admittedly, the writ petitioner was similarly placed as those persons. But an office memorandum dated 12th June 2006 intervened, which stated the following: "The executives who pass 1st class MMCC in E3, E4 and E5 grade will be horizontally placed in the same grade in 1st class channel from the effective date of 1st class. The above recommendation shall come into force with effect from 08.05.2006. Accordingly, the old cases shall be disposed as per existing norms and guidelines and new pass out cases shall be dealt as per recommendation mentioned above." It is said by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that since the writ petitioner obtained the above qualifications after coming into force of this office memorandum on 8th May, 2006 that is, in or about August 2006 his case was not considered. 3. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a single Bench unreported decision of our Court In the case of (San/ay Perveen v. Coal India Limited and others) decided on 26th September, 2008. In that decision also the petitioner was similarly placed as the writ petitioner here. 3. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a single Bench unreported decision of our Court In the case of (San/ay Perveen v. Coal India Limited and others) decided on 26th September, 2008. In that decision also the petitioner was similarly placed as the writ petitioner here. After detailed reasons our Court said : "THE respondent authorities are hereby directed not to give effect to the Memorandum dated 12th June, 2006 being Annexure 'P-5' to the writ application so far the claim of the present petitioners are concerned. The said authorities are directed to promote the petitioners to E-4 grade from E-3 grade in the First Class Channel with effect from the date mentioned in their First Class Certificate by treating them at par with 2003. 2004 and 2005 batches forthwith." 4. AN appeal was preferred from that decision being MAT 1005 of 2008 where the appeal was admitted but stay refused. Meanwhile, the restpondent has cited paragraph 2 of the judgment in the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) v. Director Pubjob Instructions, Punjab and another reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706 and paragraph 21 of Rajastlian Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal and Another reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 260 to argue that the qualification which had been obtained on the date the consideration for the post was being made or the rules providing for promotion took effect, could only be taken into account. 5. I find nothing wrong with the terms proposed by the office memorandum dated 12th June 2006 except to the extent below. It says that the recommendation would come into effect from 8th May 2006. As far as this case is concerned, the date of coming into effect of this memorandum is not germane but one stipulation in it or the interpretation of it made by the Respondent No. 1 is the cause of dispute in this matter. That stipulation is "new pass out cases shall be dealt as per recommendation mentioned above." 6. NOW, this "new pass out cases" have been interpreted by the respondent No, l, as qualifications obtained by executives in E3. E4 and E5 grade after coming Into force of the above recommendations. We are concerned with E3 only, The single Bench decision of our Court (Supra) Is applicable to the facts of this case, as the facts are similar. NOW, this "new pass out cases" have been interpreted by the respondent No, l, as qualifications obtained by executives in E3. E4 and E5 grade after coming Into force of the above recommendations. We are concerned with E3 only, The single Bench decision of our Court (Supra) Is applicable to the facts of this case, as the facts are similar. In the cited Supreme Court decisions there was no assurance or representation or policy statement by the employer representing that upon a qualification being obtained promotion would be granted. 7. THE earlier condiuons for promotion or recommendations or policy dated 22nd September 2000 were in effect before the making of the office memorandum dated 12th June 2006. Now, under those rules, an executive In the 2nd Class channel in grade E3, on obtaining the above qualification, that is, 1st class MMCC, had a very real possibility of being promoted to the 1st class channel in the grade E4. Now, on the basis of this representation or this policy or this guideline of the respondent No. 1 he prepared himself to sit for the relevant examination being the FCC examination. He appeared in that examination in December 2005 when those rules were in force as will appear from the records. However, the result was declared on 15th July 2006. He submitted that result or qualification to the Director (personnel) of the respondent No. 1 on 19th August 2006. 8. BUT by that time the new recommendations regarding recruitment dated 12th June 2006 had intervened and by those recommendations or the interpretation made of them by the respondent No. l, he had to obtain the qualification before coming into force of this recommendation, that is, 8th May 2006. Thus, the Writ petitioner was not promoted as did not possess the requisite qualification on 8th May, 2006. Having induced the writ petitioner directly or indirectly to prepare for the qualification and to obtain the qualification so that upon obtaining such qualification the writ petitioner would be promoted, the respondent No.1, following the classic principles of promissory estoppel, applied to this case, cannot, in my opinion retract from the position that that upon gaining such qualification the writ petitioner would be considered for promotion to the 1st Class channel in E4 grade. Therefore, the stipulation "new pass out cases" should not include employees who have taken the qualifying examination before the new policy and whose results have been published after the new policy. 9. THEREFORE, the memorandum dated 12th June 2006 has to be applied accordingly In the case of the writ petitioner. 10. THEREFORE, this writ application is allowed by directing the respondent No. 1 to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion to the 1st class channel in E4 on the basis of acquisition of a first class MMCC qualification, in accordance with the above observations within a period of 8 weeks of communication of this order. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Writ application allowed.