Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 591 (JHR)

Dayanand Prasad v. Coal India Ltd. , Kolkata

2013-05-03

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has moved this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider his case in terms of para-2 of the policy of the promotion from Non-Executive to Executive Cadre and appoint and promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Executive Pharmacy (E-O). 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the Writ Petition are that the petitioner who is a Diploma Holder in Pharmacy completed his course in Diploma in the year 1975 and he was appointed on 23.05.1978 in Central Coal Washery Organisation. It is stated that on 01.10.1983 Central Coal Washery Organisation was merged with Bharat Coking Coal Limited and all the employees of the Central Coal Washery Organisation became employees of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and they were asked an option whether to continue with service conditions applicable to Central Coal Washery Organisation or to the Rules applicable to the Bharat Coking Coal Limited. 3. A Writ Petition being CWJC No. 2075 of 1998 (R) was preferred by one Janta Mazdoor Sangh agitating the claim of the workmen for promotion from Non-Executive Cadre to Executive Cadre and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 18.01.2000 with a direction to implement the Rules of Promotion of Non-Executive Cadre as contained in Sail Rules. 4. The petitioner made an application against the advertisement, which was issued on 06.04.2001 and he along with others were called for interview. A list of 16 persons in Technical Categories was prepared for promotion to E-O Category. It is further stated that the list contained name of two persons namely, Mr. S.K. Mukherjee and Mr. Lakhan Ram who however, retired before a final decision was taken to fill the posts. 5. The petitioner has contended that his name would have been considered for promotion because two posts out of the seven posts remained vacant and are still vacant. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that since the petitioner's name did not figure in the first 7 persons, he was not granted the promotion, however, as and when some vacancy would arise an exercise for filling up of these vacancies would be undertaken and the petitioner would also be considered along with other candidates. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the documents on record. 8. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the documents on record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even as on today two posts are vacant on which the respondents could have considered the claim of the petitioner for being promoted in E-O Category. 9. As against this Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has contended that panel was prepared in the year 2001 and as the name of the petitioner did not figure in the top 7 persons in the list prepared after conducting the Interview, he could not have been granted any promotion. He has further submitted that in such matters relating to promotion when a person is not eligible, this Court would not pass any direction even for consideration of his claim. 10. On perusal of the documents on record, I am of the view that the panel which was prepared in the year 2001 does not survive and it cannot be acted upon after 12 years. No direction can be issued to the respondents for adjusting the petitioner on the alleged vacant two posts, however, it is clarified that in view of the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner's claim would be considered when a new selection process would start, it would be open to the petitioner to make representation before the Authorities and participate in the selection process which would be undertaken in future. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.