U C DUKMA Vs. COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short controversy involved in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether by change of cadre combination any prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the matter of consideration of his claim for promotion or not and whether because of the change in the cadre combination, the petitioner was denied any promotion. Facts giving rise to filing of the present petition in short are that the petitioner was working in E-III Grade in discipline of Chemist. The Executive Posts of Chemist were earlier kept in the combination with Coke Oven Discipline. When the vacancies were there, the cases were to be considered, according to the petitioner all of a sudden the combination of the cadre was changed and the Coke Oven discipline was grouped with Chemical Engineering. According to the petitioner this was done mainly to deny promotion to the petitioner though he was senior enough in the seniority list of Chemist/Coke Oven Officers. It is contended that the consideration was done and those who were junior to the petitioner were promoted by the orders of the respondents. The grievance raised by the petitioner was not considered, therefore, he was required to approach this Court. On one occasion, the petitioner could gather the information that he was not considered because it was said that he was not having the requisite qualification, therefore, again the repeated representations were made. Ultimately, the petitioner was considered and promoted vide order dated 22-3-2001. This being the situation, the petitioner again made the representation for giving him seniority with effect from 27-3-1998 with all the consequential benefits, but since this was not being done, the writ petition was required to be filed.

(2.) Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition, a return has been filed and it is contended that timely the case of the petitioner was considered in turn in accordance to the cadre combination. It is categorically said that the petitioner was considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held in the year 1998, was brought in the select list at Serial No. 5, but since the vacancies in that discipline were not available, the petitioner was not promoted. As there were only two vacancies, the person at Serial No. 1 of the select list was not found eligible as was not having the minimum qualification prescribed, his promotion was differed and those who were at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 of the select panel, were granted promotion. The vacancy for the petitioner when occurred in his discipline, his claim was considered and he was rightly promoted. This being so, it is contended that the entire allegations made by the petitioner are misconceived and misleading. It is submitted by the respondents that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. By filing a rejoinder much has been said, but the only crux is whether by change of combination of cadre any prejudice was caused to the petitioner or not.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.