PANKAJ BHATRI Vs. CHAIRMAN ONGC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions petitioners are children of ONGC employees. They have under- gone special training for wards of ONGC employees imparted by the Commission. The petitioners claim that they have undergone the training for a period of one year and now the Commission is extending the period of training for a further period of one year from 1/01/1990 Orders in this respect have been passed on 6/01/1990 as per Annexure `G & `G-1 to the petition. The petitioners pray that the aforesaid orders be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to consider the petitioners for appointment on regular basis to Class I post of El level or to other lower post equivalent to Class I. In both these petitions the facts are similar and the prayers made are same therefore at the request and with the censent of learned advocates appearing for the parties both these matters are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) It is contended that as per first para of the scheme which is produced at Annexure `C to the petition the petitioners have on successful completion of training right to be considered for appointment to the posts in question. According to the petitioners they have undergone the training successfully. They claim that they have in fact appeared in the examination which was held in December 1989 but the result thereof is not declared and instead the period of training is extended. In this background the petitioners claim that the respondents should be directed to give appointment to them. The claim of the petitioners is resisted by the respondent- Commission by filing affidavit-in-reply.

(3.) If one scrutinizes the scheme strictly on legal basis it is doubtful as to whether the scheme can be said to be constitutionally valid. The eligibility criteria inter alia provides as follows :-