Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 379 (GAU)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Chandan Kalita

2017-03-27

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 05.05.2015 passed in four writ petitions i.e. WP (C) No. 296/2015, WP (C) No. 924/2015, WP (C) No. 1133/2015 and WP (C) No. 1137/2015. 2. Challenge made in the writ petitions was with regard to the Advertisement dated 01.11.2014 issued by the Guwahati Refinery for recruitment of Non-Executives in various posts covering different trades. Grievance raised was in respect of the minimum qualifying marks which made the writ petitioners ineligible to vie for the post although they fulfilled all other eligibility conditions. An additional grievance was also raised as no relaxation had been provided to the candidates who had undergone or are undergoing apprentice training under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. It was argued on behalf of the writ petitioners that fixation of such high minimum qualifying marks, standing at 50% for unreserved category and 45% for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes community, as well as in not providing relaxation as above, was wholly arbitrary and irrational, keeping in mind the objectives of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and the recruitment procedure followed in other Refineries such as Gujarat and Mathura Refineries. In the said Refineries, which are under the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. like the Guwahati Refinery, it follows a procedure where the minimum qualifying marks are prescribed at the time of engagement as apprentice in order that after training, one is not debarred from appearing in the recruitment test on grounds of not having the minimum qualifying marks. During the course of the writ proceedings, an interim order was also passed permitting the writ petitioners to appear in the written test. Eventually, by a detailed judgment, the bunch of writ petitions were disposed of with direction to the present appellants to declare the results with further direction that if the writ petitioners have been found to be successful, their cases for consequential appointment be considered by treating them to be eligible candidates. The said directions were, however confined to the writ-petitioners in WP (C) No. 296/2015 and WP (C) No. 924/2015. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 3. We have heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3/writ-petitioners. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 3. We have heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3/writ-petitioners. At the outset we place on record that we do not intend to disturb the findings and decisions of the learned Single Judge. 4. The Apprentices Act, 1961 and Rules framed thereunder were framed primarily with the object of creating a pool of skilled workmen for furtherance of the economic development of the country. The provisions under the Act has received consideration by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, as mentioned in the judgment under appeal, whereby observations were made that training so imparted should be in the line of being result-oriented. It was also held that other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits although one must necessarily go through the procedure of appearing in examination/interview while seeking employment. The Supreme Court have also laid down that an employer cannot be compelled to offer employment to an apprentice and while seeking employment the apprentice concerned must fulfil the eligibility criteria of appointment. In the instant case the minimum qualifying marks was initially fixed at 60% which was scaled down to 50% by means of a Corrigendum. This action reflects that the Refinery Authorities were alive to a situation where the minimum qualifying marks may be required to be scaled down. It is also seen that in certain Refineries under the control of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for appearing in a recruitment test are those that were prescribed at the time of engagement as an apprentice. On these grounds the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge receives our complete agreement. 5. On 02.12.2015 when this appeal was admitted for hearing, an interim order was passed to the effect that three posts of Junior Engineering Assistant Grade-IV shall be reserved for the respondents herein. To be noticed, the respondents had appeared in the written examination pursuant to the interim order in the writ proceedings. 5. On 02.12.2015 when this appeal was admitted for hearing, an interim order was passed to the effect that three posts of Junior Engineering Assistant Grade-IV shall be reserved for the respondents herein. To be noticed, the respondents had appeared in the written examination pursuant to the interim order in the writ proceedings. As the scheme of recruitment also envisages an additional exercise by way of interview, an order was passed on 02.03.2017 in the present appeal directing the appellants to hold interview of the respondents and to inform this Court about the result in a sealed cover. The progression of events as obtaining today is that both the written test as well as interview of the respondents have since been completed. The result sheets containing the written test marks as well as the interview marks have been placed before this Court today in sealed covers. Additionally, the Minutes of the Selection Committee meetings held on different dates have also been produced. In respect of the post of Junior Engineering Assistant –IV (Production), the respondents Chandan Kalita and Ratul Sharma secured aggregate marks of 54 and 44.5 respectively - the break-up being 49 marks in written and 5 marks in interview (Chandan Kalita) and 40 marks in written and 4.5 marks in interview (Ratul Sharma). From the Minutes it is seen that there are two other persons securing 56 and 55 marks respectively who could not be offered appointment in view of the interim order passed in the present proceedings. Apparently, these two other persons secured more aggregate marks than Chandan Kalita and Ratul Sharma. In so far as the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Boiler) is concerned, the respondent Dhruba Jyoti Sharma secured 44 marks in written and 8 marks in the interview, thereby aggregating 52 marks. The Minutes of the selection shows that the last selected candidate against the said post secured a total aggregate 51 marks. In such a situation, Dhruba Jyoti Sharma is legitimately entitled to be offered appointment as Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Boiler). 6. From the data gathered from the records made available in sealed cover, we close this appeal with direction that steps be taken by the appellants to appoint respondent Dhruba Jyoti Sharma as Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Boiler). In such a situation, Dhruba Jyoti Sharma is legitimately entitled to be offered appointment as Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Boiler). 6. From the data gathered from the records made available in sealed cover, we close this appeal with direction that steps be taken by the appellants to appoint respondent Dhruba Jyoti Sharma as Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Boiler). In so far as Chandan Kalita and Ratul Sharma are concerned, we are afraid that no direction can be made towards their appointment having regard to their performance and marks secured in the examinations and also having regard to the fact that there are two other candidates in the fray who have secured higher marks. In view of the above, this appeal stands accordingly disposed of.