DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition, the petitioners stated to be the Senior Surveyors under Coal INdia Limited ('CIL' for short) and/or its subsidiaries, namely, South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Western Coalfields Limited, have challenged the office order dated 5th September, 2008 issued by the authorities whereby 115 persons were promoted to the rank of Assistant Survey Officer, E-1 Grade. However, as evident from the statements made in Paragraph 5 of the writ petition challenge is in respect of promotions of four promotees - respondent Nos. 7 to 10 - since "The petitioners do not have a grievance against any of the promotees barring the private respondents". It has been stated that the impugned order is the result of an illegal interview by which the petitioners have been denied the chance of getting promoted. According to the petitioners, the promotion of the private-respondents is perse illegal since they are all juniors. On a bare perusal of the Common Coal Cadre (for short 'the Scheme') it would appear that the promotion to the Executive Grade would be on the basis of the recommendation of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. Further, it has been provided in the Scheme that all promotions from the senior-most non-Executive Grade to the Executive Grade would be on the basis of selection test and interview. The syllabi and the methodology for conducting the test would be as laid down by the CIL. For promotion from non-Executive to Executive Cadre in the Survey Discipline, that is from the post of Surveyor to the post of Assistant Survey Officer in E-1 Grade, it has been provided that all the posts of Assistant Survey Officer would be filled in departmentally from amongst the Surveyors with minimum seven years experience after acquiring the qualification for Surveyor post. However, the said procedure was not put to practice. Though the order dated 16th November, 1994 and the Notification dated 14th November, 2007 issued by the Western Coal Fields Limited speak of written test, however, another Notification dated 14th November, 2007 postulates holding interview only for promotion. Though it has been postulated that one has to attain the eligibility criteria by 30th September, 2007, however, promotion was given to Debjyoti Dutta who failed to make the grade. According to the petitioner they had participated in the selection process not knowing there would be no written test. Allegation is, the system of promotion lacks transparency and the motive of the CIL is to do away with the proper selection process. IN short, the entire effort of the respondent authorities is to somehow promote the private respondents who are otherwise not eligible.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners relying on the writ petition and its annexures has submitted that it is evident that there is no clear cut method for promotion. Interview, which was held in the instant case, replace qualifying examination, that is, the written test. Though the petitioners had participated in the interview, principles of estoppel will not apply if action is illegal. Since it has been demonstrated that the office orders and notifications are contrary to each other, entire proceeding is void as initio. According to him, the Scheme though not a statutory rule, has a statutory flavour and thus binding. However, assuming the contentions of the petitioners are not accepted, it has been argued, since promotions have taken effect, in future, the case of the petitioners for promotion may be considered. In support of his submissions he has relied on the following judgments Munindra Kumar and Ors. v. Rajiv Govil and Ors., 1991 AIR(SC) 1607 . Rajkumar and Ors. v. Shakti Raj and Ors., 1997 AIR(SC) 2110.

(3.) The application being C.A.N.No.4178 of 2009 is also disposed of.