Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 205 (CAL)

Mani Kant Ravi v. Coal India Limited

2020-02-13

AMRITA SINHA

body2020
Judgment : 1. Sixty-four petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition praying for a direction upon the respondent, Coal India Limited to permit them to appear in the selection test for recruitment of Management Trainees in the said Company. 2. The petitioners are all employees of the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited and they were appointed as Wage Board Staff. 3. The advertisement that is under challenge in this writ petition is annexed at page 91 of the writ petition. The same has been published by Coal India Limited being Advertisement No. 01 of 2019 for recruitment of Management Trainees through online application mode in different disciplines. The opening date for online registration of applications was December 21, 2019 and the last date of online submission of applications with fee was January 19, 2020. The tentative dates of computer based online test have been fixed on February 27, 2020 & February 28, 2020. 4. In the discipline of Mining the minimum educational qualification required for appearing in the said examination is BE/B.Tech/B.Sc(Engg.) in relevant branch of Engineering with minimum 60% marks. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by not including the qualification of engineering degree awarded by the Associate Membership in Institution of Engineers ( in short AMIE). The petitioners are all degree-holders from the aforesaid institution. 6. According to the petitioners the degree awarded by the said institute has been recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education for pre May 31, 2013 enrolled members. Most of the petitioner's claim to have been enrolled in the degree course under the aforesaid institute prior to May 31, 2013. 7. The petitioners have relied upon the recruitment notice of Coal India Limited for the years 2012, 2015 and 2017 wherein the candidates having the engineering degree from AMIE were allowed to participate in the recruitment process. 8. It has been submitted that the degree from the aforesaid institution has deliberately not been included in the notice published in the year 2019 to restrict a group of engineers from participating in the recruitment process. The same is illegal and arbitrary. 9. According to the petitioners they ought not to have been differentiated from the degree-holders of other engineering institutions as the degree awarded by AMIE is equivalent to the degree B.E./B.Tech/AMIE/B.Sc(Engg.) awarded by other institutions. 10. The same is illegal and arbitrary. 9. According to the petitioners they ought not to have been differentiated from the degree-holders of other engineering institutions as the degree awarded by AMIE is equivalent to the degree B.E./B.Tech/AMIE/B.Sc(Engg.) awarded by other institutions. 10. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the advertisements published by NTPC Limited and ISRO in the year 2019 wherein the candidates with degree awarded by AMIE have been permitted to appear in the recruitment process. 11. Reliance has been placed on an order dated September 23, 2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Yashpal Sinh Jadeja & Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) & Anr. in W.P.(C) 4059 of 2019 where an issue as to whether to allow the students who enrolled in AMIE course after May 31, 2013 under the protection of stay order passed by the said Court came up for consideration. The Court as an interim measure directed the respondents to accept the applications of the petitioners therein, subject to further orders of the Court. 12. The petitioners have also relied upon the Supreme Court order passed in the matter of M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr. reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 paragraphs 21 and 22. 13. The primary contention of the petitioners is that Coal India Limited being a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India ought not to fix up the minimum qualification for appearing in the entrance examination arbitrarily as they have permitted the candidates possessing the above degree in earlier years. Accordingly excluding the said degree-holders from the zone of consideration at the present is bad in law. 14. The petitioners pray for an interim order directing the respondents to permit them to appear in the recruitment examination subject to further orders of the Court. 15. The learned advocate representing the respondents submits that the advertisement was published in accordance with the provisions incorporated in the Common Coal Cadre. The Common Coal Cadre consists of the detailed rules and procedures for the administration of the executives and the said rules are applicable in respect of Coal India Limited as well as its subsidiary Companies. 16. In chapter-III of the said manual the provision for recruitment of executives are mentioned. The Common Coal Cadre consists of the detailed rules and procedures for the administration of the executives and the said rules are applicable in respect of Coal India Limited as well as its subsidiary Companies. 16. In chapter-III of the said manual the provision for recruitment of executives are mentioned. Clause 3.1 of the said manual mentions that in terms of para 12 of the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, letter No. 380011/1/74-CAF dated September 27, 1975, recruitment of all personnel at the level of executives would be made by Coal India Limited, on behalf of the subsidiary Companies. 17. According to the 3.3 of the said manual the qualification for recruitment is mentioned. It says that the qualifications, experience, etc. for outside recruitment will normally follow the cadre rules of the respective disciplines and the qualification for recruitment of Management Trainees mentions that recognized degree or qualification, post-graduate diploma/degree in Business Administration/Management is essential. 18. According to clause 3.4 of the manual the Coal India Headquarters will issue necessary press advertisement giving full details of the job specifications etc. for publication in important national newspapers. Simultaneously with the release of the press advertisement, a vacancy notice will also be sent out to all subsidiary Companies for giving publicity to enable the eligible internal candidates to apply for the same. 19. It has been submitted that pursuant to the above regulation the press advertisement has duly been published in the newspaper. 20. According to clause 3.5 of the manual the departmental candidates are considered on the basis of certain guidelines. Clause 3.5(1) mentions that applications from departmental candidates who fulfil the advertised qualifications in response to the press advertisement will be forwarded to the Coal India Headquarters. Clause 3.5(2) mentions that the departmental candidates who fulfil the advertised norms with regard to both qualification and experience may be called for interview. Clause 3.5(4) mentions that the departmental candidates who do not fulfil the stipulations in the advertisement would not be considered. Wherever relaxation is required, it shall be with the specific approval of the Chairman or any authority delegated with such powers. 21. It has been submitted that the departmental candidates are bound to follow the educational qualification as stipulated in the press advertisement. Any candidate who does not fulfil the stipulated eligibility criteria is not entitled to participate in the examination. 22. 21. It has been submitted that the departmental candidates are bound to follow the educational qualification as stipulated in the press advertisement. Any candidate who does not fulfil the stipulated eligibility criteria is not entitled to participate in the examination. 22. It has been contended that the relaxation has been provided for the departmental candidates. It has been pointed out that according to the advertisement the departmental candidates have been given relaxation of age and no application fee is payable by them. Apart from the aforesaid two relaxations there is no further relaxation. 23. The question of relaxation of the educational qualification does not arise as the Company is entitled to recruit the best candidates and according to the requirement of the Company the minimum educational qualification has already been published in the advertisement. 24. The learned counsel has submitted that other Companies viz. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Indian Oil, Powergrid and NTPC are all recruiting candidates who possess a regular full time degree in engineering. The degree awarded by AMIE is not a full time degree and the same is awarded through correspondence course. 25. It has been contended that the NTPC advertisement which has been annexed to the writ petition at page 88 has been put on hold and fresh recruitment notice has been published by NTPC wherein the minimum educational qualification prescribed is a full time degree in engineering. The degree awarded by AMIE has not been mentioned in the advertisement published by NTPC Limited. 26. The respondents have submitted that the petitioners in paragraph 9 of the writ petition have mentioned that most of the petitioners have enrolled in AMIE Courses prior to March 31, 2013. 27. It has been submitted that the petitioners have not made any categorical statement as to which of the petitioners possess the degree awarded from the said institution and the dates of their admission in the said institute. The contention of the respondents is that the averment made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition is very vague and no reliance ought to be place on the same. 28. The contention of the respondents is that the averment made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition is very vague and no reliance ought to be place on the same. 28. It has been argued that the Company is not considering the degree awarded by AMIE as one of the requisite qualifications for recruitment of Management Trainees in the present examination accordingly, there is no reason as to deal with the submission of the petitioners regarding pre and post May 31, 2013 candidates. 29. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties it appears that the Company has set out the requisite qualification of the candidates who will be entitled to participate in the recruitment process of Management Trainee as per their requirement. It is the sole and absolute prerogative of the employer to fix up the eligibility criteria for an examination. The candidates who fulfil the said criteria are eligible to appear and those who do not, are not entitled. 30. The issue of excluding a particular set of candidates who have obtained the degree from a particular institution is not required to be decided in the instant writ petition since the same is the discretion of the employer to fix up the eligibility criteria. 31. It hardly matters as to which of the qualifications the employer will prescribe as the minimum eligibility criteria for recruitment. The employer is always entitled to recruit the best candidates. It appears that the Company thought it fit to exclude the candidates possessing the degrees from AMIE. The Court does not find the same to be arbitrary. 32. The fact that the same Company had permitted the candidates with the aforesaid degree to appear in the examination in the past years does not, in my opinion, give any right, far less enforceable right to the candidates to approach the High Court under its high prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the said action of the employer. The High Court under Article 226 ought not to enter into the prerogative jurisdiction of the employer in fixing up the minimum required qualification for a cadre. 33. Moreover as a matter of policy decision the Company has fixed up the minimum educational qualification required for appearing in the examination. A Writ Court ought not to enter into the policy decision of the employer in this regard. 34. 33. Moreover as a matter of policy decision the Company has fixed up the minimum educational qualification required for appearing in the examination. A Writ Court ought not to enter into the policy decision of the employer in this regard. 34. The employer alone can determine the requirements for the post in question. When the employer prescribes a particular qualification, then Court would not be justified in imposing its view and would also not claim expertise so as to substitute its view or decision for that of the employer. The employer is the best judge of his requirements and of the qualification he looks for and desires. 35. It is open and within the competency of the employer to change/alter/modify the prescribed qualification for recruitment from time to time depending upon its needs and necessities. There is no right on the part of an intending examinee to allege that the same qualification has to be prescribed each and every time the recruitment is being made. 36. The scope of judicial review in matters prescribing the qualification for recruitment by the employer is extremely limited. Judicial review can be exercised only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary and mala fide. It is not open for the court to prescribe the qualification as long as the qualification prescribed is reasonably relevant and is not violative of any provision of the Constitution. 38. The court is not empowered to issue a writ of mandamus directing the employer to change and/or fix the requisite qualification prescribed by the employer. The same will give rise to a dangerous trend whereby intending examinees may rush to the court for necessary direction for incorporation and/or fixing up a particular educational qualification as the eligibility criteria for appearing in a competitive examination. A writ of mandamus can only be issued when a constitutional or statutory right is infringed. 39. In the instant case neither any constitutional nor any statutory right of the petitioner have been infringed by way of fixing up a particular educational qualification for appearing in a recruitment examination. 40. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, in my opinion, this is not a fit case in which order may be passed in favour of the petitioners, as prayed for. 41. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 42. 40. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, in my opinion, this is not a fit case in which order may be passed in favour of the petitioners, as prayed for. 41. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 42. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties after completion of all legal formalities.