BALASUBRABMANYAM Vs. SINGARENI COHIERIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent, P. Kailasa Rao, had made an application to trie 1st respondent, the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem, lor an appointment in the company. That application reads as follows :

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the Singareni Collieries, it was noted that the 2nd respondent has been working for the past five years in the Open Cast Projects of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd,, and looking after the maintenance and repairs of Heavy Earth Moving Machinery and was also responsible for planning and procurement of spares for the equipment. In the bio-data accompanying his application, the 2nd respondent stated that, from 1-10-1985 to 13-10-1986, he worked for one year as a graduate apprentice in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Burnpur, and that, from 13-10-1976, he was working in the Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., looking alter the maiatenance and repairs of Heavy Earth Moving Machinery such as bulldozers, scrappers, H.M. Shevels, C.P.T. Compressor, wagon drills, Russian Drills etc; It was on that basis that the 2nd respondent and the Singareni Collieries are supporting the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Executive Engineer of the Company.

(3.) If 1 were to decide whether the 2nd respondent deserve to be appointed as an Executive Engineer more than the writ petitioners, I would have clearly expressed my inability to do so. If compelled to embark upon such an enquiry, I would have unhesitatingly done taken the assistance of a competent technician to judge the ri,vat claims. But that is not the scope and ambit of this writ petition. 1 an mainly concerned in this writ petition with the question whether the Singareni Collierties, which is substantially owned and wholly controlled by the. governmental authority, has adopted a proper procedure in secretjy receiving an application from the second respondent for appointment and appointing htm later.. The fact that there are no rules prescribing standards of eligibility for direct recruitment is not, denied by the respondents. In fact direct recruitment is not one of the modes of recruitment to , this post. The petitioner could then validly contend that the post cap pnly be filled by promotion. It would, therefore, not be proper to say that the writ petitioners are not eligible to be considered for being appointed as Executive Engineers. After all, they have been the employees of the company for long and they are all engineering graduates. In the absence of any .rules making the petitioners ineligible for applying to the post, the Singareni Collieries, is relying upon the rules and the practice which it is following for recruitment .by promotion. Such rules are clearly inappli cable for direct recruitment. The Singareni Collieries, therefore, cannot contend, that the, writ petitioners have not put in five years of service as Assistant Eegineers, because that is not made the requiremeat of any valid rule, In the absence of such rules excluding the petitioners from the field of choice, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment. In fact, it is argued, that the rules do not provide for any. direct recruitment as Executive Engineer and the method of recruitment is only by promotion. In such ,a case, the recruitment of the 2nd respondent would be bad; for the reason that the petitioners were not given any notice of the recruitment. Even otherwise, public appointment should not made in this hole and corner manner. In N. Hara Gopal vs. T. T. D. Tirupathi V., 1983 (3) APLJ 150. A division Bench of this; Court considered the question as to what would be the proper degree of recruitment publicity on public should give to the prospective. appointees In answering that question. Division Bench observed :