Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 405 (MP)

U. C. Dukma v. Coal India Ltd.

2013-03-22

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT : The short controversy involved in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether by change of cadre combination any prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the matter of consideration of his claim for promotion or not and whether because of the change in the cadre combination, the petitioner was denied any promotion. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the present petition in short are that the petitioner was working in E-III Grade in discipline of Chemist. The Executive Posts of Chemist were earlier kept in the combination with Coke Oven Discipline. When the vacancies were there, the cases were to be considered, according to the petitioner all of a sudden the combination of the cadre was changed and the Coke Oven discipline was grouped with Chemical Engineering. According to the petitioner this was done mainly to deny promotion to the petitioner though he was senior enough in the seniority list of Chemist/Coke Oven Officers. It is contended that the consideration was done and those who were junior to the petitioner were promoted by the orders of the respondents. The grievance raised by the petitioner was not considered, therefore, he was required to approach this Court. On one occasion, the petitioner could gather the information that he was not considered because it was said that he was not having the requisite qualification, therefore, again the repeated representations were made. Ultimately, the petitioner was considered and promoted vide order dated 22-3-2001. This being the situation, the petitioner again made the representation for giving him seniority with effect from 27-3-1998 with all the consequential benefits, but since this was not being done, the writ petition was required to be filed. 3. Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition, a return has been filed and it is contended that timely the case of the petitioner was considered in turn in accordance to the cadre combination. It is categorically said that the petitioner was considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held in the year 1998, was brought in the select list at Serial No. 5, but since the vacancies in that discipline were not available, the petitioner was not promoted. It is categorically said that the petitioner was considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held in the year 1998, was brought in the select list at Serial No. 5, but since the vacancies in that discipline were not available, the petitioner was not promoted. As there were only two vacancies, the person at Serial No. 1 of the select list was not found eligible as was not having the minimum qualification prescribed, his promotion was differed and those who were at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 of the select panel, were granted promotion. The vacancy for the petitioner when occurred in his discipline, his claim was considered and he was rightly promoted. This being so, it is contended that the entire allegations made by the petitioner are misconceived and misleading. It is submitted by the respondents that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. By filing a rejoinder much has been said, but the only crux is whether by change of combination of cadre any prejudice was caused to the petitioner or not. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the cadre combination earlier as was as described by the petitioner i.e. Chemist/Coke Oven. This combination was subsequently changed to the Chemical Engineer/Coke Oven. It is not specifically pointed out by the petitioner that there were 4 posts of Chemist available when the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held in the year 1998 and if the person at Serial No. 1 of the panel prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee was not found eligible for promotion, the petitioner would have been promoted in the year 1998. Again it has not been pointed out by the petitioner that the Chemist though are put at par with the Coke Oven Discipline, could any Chemist be promoted on the post of Coke Oven Discipline. Therefore, merely because earlier there was a combination of Chemist/Coke Oven for consideration on the executive post Grade-IV, it cannot be said that the petitioner had a right to be considered for promotion. Therefore, merely because earlier there was a combination of Chemist/Coke Oven for consideration on the executive post Grade-IV, it cannot be said that the petitioner had a right to be considered for promotion. This being so, it is apparent that the entire claim was made by the petitioner on the wrong understanding that even if there was a vacancy available in other discipline, which is included in the combination with the discipline in which the petitioner is working, he would have been granted the promotion. By no stretch of imagination, such a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted. 6. Apart from this, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has placed on record the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings indicating the vacancy in particular discipline. The combination of Chemical Engineering with Coke Oven was made by the respondents, but the vacancies were available only in Chemical Engineering as is categorically mentioned in the proceedings. It is specifically said that there were vacancies in the Chemical Engineering Discipline. As far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, he was already considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, was put in the select list, but for him the vacancy was not available. There were only two posts available for Chemist Discipline on which two senior to the petitioners were promoted. As far as the Coke Oven/Chemical discipline are concerned, there were 4 posts of Chemical Engineering and 4 persons were promoted in the said discipline. None working in Coke Oven Discipline was promoted in the vacancies of discipline of Chemical Engineering. This again indicates that by change of cadre combination, the vacancy position in particular discipline were not altered by the respondents. This being so, again it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of change of cadre combination. 7. In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in the writ petition. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.