RAM VIBHASH BHARTI Vs. COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition, the petitioners who are working in E3 Grade in the Excavation Discipline under the Coal India Limited, the respondent No.1, have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their case for promotion to E4 Grade with retrospective effect from 10th August, 2007 and after consideration to grant them such notional benefits payable under the law.

(2.) It appears that the petitioners and the private respondents, holding Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering degrees, applied for appointments with the Coal India Limited. Two panels (for short "two panels") of successful candidates were prepared-one for the posts of Management Trainee (Mechanical) and another for the posts of Management Trainee (Electrical). As the petitioners and the private respondents were successful their names figured in the said two panels. It has been stated that another panel was prepared under Cadre Management Trainee (Excavation) which was filled up by drawing successful candidates from the said two panels. The names of the petitioners figured in the Management Trainee (Excavation Panel). On 11th September, 1997 the petitioners were appointed as Management Trainee (Excavation). After successful training, in the year 1998/1999. by separate office orders, they were appointed as Engineer (Excavation) in E2 Grade, in March 2002 they were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Excavation) in E3 Grade. The grievance of the petitioners are that though since 2002 they are working in E3 Grade without any consequent promotion to the E4 Grade, however, by order dated 10th August, 2007, 114 Executive Engineers in the Electrical and Mechanical Discipline working in E3 Grade were promoted to the posts of Senior Executive Engineer Electrical and Mechanical in E4 Grade. According to the petitioners, by the order dated 10th August, 2007 the private respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have been promoted to the posts of Senior Executive Engineer Electrical and Mechanical in the E4 Grade though they were much lower in rank in the said two panels of successful candidates. Submission was that though by the dint of their appointments in the Electrical and Mechanical Disciplines the private respondents have been promoted, however the petitioners merely because they are in the Excavation Cadre would stand to lose so far promotion is concerned. Thus their seniority would be affected. Prayer is since the petitioners compared to the private respondents are similarly circumstanced, they should be treated equally. Submission was as the petitioners did not opt for being appointed as Management Trainee (Excavation) and as the private respondents who were junior to them in the two panels have been promoted to the posts of Senior Executive Engineer Electrical and Mechanical in E4 Grade and as discrimination has been brought to the fore, appropriate direction may be issued. Allegation is the entire promotion policy lacks transparency as copies of approval of the competent authority regarding placement of selected executives made at the time of appointment to E1 Grade has not been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate on behalf of the Coal India Limited relying on the office order dated 27th March, 2007 submitted that the petitioners had availed themselves of the opportunity for promotion and were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Excavation) in E3 Grade which was on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Promotion beyond E3 Grade is on merit-cum-seniority which depends on several factors, such as, availability of vacancy, merit and recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee ("DPC" for short). It was submitted that the DPC in its meeting held on 20th/21st July, 2007 had considered the cases of those executives who entered into E3 Grade on or before 30th September, 2002 and had completed three years of service by 30th September, 2005. There were 102 number vacancies available in E4 Excavation Grade and DPC had considered the case of the petitioners for promotion to the E4 Grade. Accordingly promotion order was issued upto Seniority No.83 of the recommended list of executives in the general category and 21 in the SC and ST candidates. The petitioners ranked 407, 410, 413, 417, 421 and 423. Therefore, as in the recommended list the names of the petitioners were much below the available vacancies, they were not given promotion to E4 Grade in Excavation Discipline. Submission was that there are two separate channels of promotion-one for Excavation Discipline and other for the Electrical and Mechanical Disciplines. The executives belonging to Excavation Discipline cannot claim promotion against the vacancy available in Electrical and Mechanical Disciplines. Similarly Executives belonging to Electrical and Mechanical Disciplines cannot claim promotion against any vacancy in Excavation Discipline. Therefore, any comparison of the case of the petitioners with those in the Electrical and Mechanical Disciplines, as made out in the petition, is misconceived. Submission was if any order is passed directing promotion to the petitioners in the Excavation Discipline, it shall lead to an anomalous situation.