S RAMESH RAO Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Proceedings No. PA/W8/8006/86, dated 17-3-1986 issued by the 3rd respondent and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner in this case is an Advocate, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, who has put in a period of three years as a practising advocate. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ramachandrapuram Unit, Respondent No. 1 herein, which is a Government of India undertaking, had issued a notification in several English dailies dated 10-8-1985 calling for application for the post of one Law Officer. The last date for receipt of applications was notified as 6-9-1985. It is alleged by the petitioner that abaut 70 applications were received by the 3rd respondent, the Additional General Manager, Personnel and Administration, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad and abcut 30 candidates appeared for the oral interview held in October 1985. Subsequently Appointment orders dated 17-3-1986 were issued to respondents 5 to 7 appointing them as Law Officers as against one post advertised in the month of August 1985. The contention of the petitioner is that the advertisement was made only for one post and three appointment letters were issued by the respondent-Company in violation of the terms of the notification itself. If more than one post was to be filled up, then, it is alleged, that at least one post should be reserved for SC/ST candidates. The petitioner challenges the above appointments as being against the recruitment rules, particularly Rule 11.8.1 which lays down the procedure for advertisement and also guidelines to be followed by the respondent-Company while advertising the posts and filling them. It is also alleged that recruitment Rule 7.1 has also been given a go-by in so far as it provides that it shall be the endeavour of the Company to help the Government in achieving its objectives in respect of upliftment of the socio-economic status of those belonging to weaker sections of the society. The Company shall not spare any efforts to adhere to and follow the directives of the Government concerning reservation of vacancies and concessions allowed to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes etc. It may be stated here itself that the petitioner himself was not an applicant in response to the notification issued as indeed he has not completed the required five years of practice as a legal practitioner which would have qualified him to apply for the post of Law Officer, as advertised by the Company. The orders of appointment are challenged inter alia as being in violation of Articles 15 (4) and 16(4)of the Constitution of India as the rule of reservation has not been followed. The petitioner, apart from being an advocate of three years standing, projects himself as a social worker adumbrating the cause of the weaker sections, particularly those of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.

(3.) In the counter affidavit initially filed by the Respondent-Company in this case the stand taken by the Company in a nutshell is to the effect that the petitioner does not have the necessary locus standi to file the writ petition as he is neither an applicant nor qualified person to apply for the said post of Law Officer. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the appointment offers were issued to three candidates as per the selection panel, vide Reference No. PA/W8/8006/86, dated 17-3-1986 in favour of Sri T. Viswanatha Sastry, Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao and Mrs. K. Sita. Further, it is admitted that even though the advertisement was initially made only for oae post of Law Officer, taking into consideration the increased work load in the Legal Department it was considered appropriate to issue offers to three candidates. The answer given with regard to the question of reservation in the first counter affidavit is that as regards the reservation for SC/ST., the post of Law Officer being one right from the inception of the Company, it was treated as unreserved. In the executive cadre the direct recruitment to E l and above grades being less, one roster is maintained for direct recruitment to the posts in the Executive Cadre as posts as small cadre strengths are grouped together. The roster maintained for the direct recruitment to the posts, such as Personnel Officer, Commercial Engineer, Medical Officer etc., is the same, in order to effectively implement the rule of reservation on a comprehensive basis. In accordance with the directives, small cadres, numbering less than 20 posts, can be grouped together. When three posts of Law Officers were intended to be operated, a consequential reservation would have been carried forward while making recruitments to any other posts in the sami roster as stated above. Hence, it is contended that by appointing the three candidates the role of reservation was not ignored but it would have been taken care of in the combined roster by carrying forward any reservations arising therefrom. In this view of the matter the positive stand taken by the respondent-Company is that there has been no violation of Articles 15 (4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Further more, it is stated that after the scrutiny of all the applications received, as no SC candidadates were eligible for consideration, it was felt not necessary to have any S C. Member in the Selection Board. It may also be stated that even though the offers of appointment were issued to three candidates, the first candidate Sri T. Visvaratha Sastry did rot give his acceptance and sought tor extension of time for one month. The second candidate Sri A. Madhusadhan Rao had communicated his acceptance but he also sought for extension of time for joining the post. The third candidate Mrs. K.. Sita communicated her acceptance to the offer and after undergoing medical examination, it seems she had joined the post after two weeks from the date of her appointment.