JITENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner inter -alia seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in written examination as well as in the interview for recruitment on the post of Mining Sirdar. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to debar the respondents No.3 to 5 from appearing in the written examination for recruitment to the post of Mining Sirdar and in case of their appointment on the said post, to quash their appointment.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated are that an advertisement was published in 'Rojgar Samachar', in December 2005, by which applications were invited for appointment on the post of Mining Sirdars. The petitioner as well as the respondents No.3 to 5 submitted their applications. However, the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the aforesaid examination on the ground that he does not have the requisite experience. It is the case of the petitioner that even though, the respondents No.3 to 5 did not have the requisite experience, yet they were allowed to appear in the written examination, which was held on 30th July, 2006 and in the interview. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to the Regulation 18 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, submitted that even though, in the advertisement, requirement of four years of experience of working in the mines was prescribed yet the Regulation 18 provides that the candidates must have three years of experience of working in coal mines. While inviting the attention of this Court to the experience certificates which have been cumulative marked as Annexure P/8, it was submitted that the petitioner had 4 years, 6 months and 20 days experience of working in the mines, yet he was deprived of his legitimate claim to appear in the examination. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3, 4 and 5 did not have requisite experience but they were allowed to appear in the written examination. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of fundamental right to apply in respect of employment and for consideration of his candidature in an arbitrary manner by the respondents. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Krishan Chander Nayar Vs. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation and others, 1962 AIR(SC) 602.