ALOK ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Vishwamohan Kumar Sinha for the Coal India Limited and its functionaries, respondents no. 2 and 3. None appears on behalf of the Union of India, Respondent No. 1.

(2.) PETITIONERS , who are Mining Engineers and had applied for being considered for the post of Management Trainees, Mining in the Coal India Limited in response to the advertisement notice dated 14.7.1997 as also 19.5.2001 as contained in Annexures -1 and 4, are aggrieved by the orders of the Coal India Limited dated 9.2.2005, Annexure -7 as also cancellation notice dated 31st, December, 2005, Annexure -12 published in employment news, whereunder the selection process undertaken in response to the subsequent advertisement dated 19.5.20001, Annexure - 4, has been cancelled holding that the selection process initiated in terms of the advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure - 4 was not taken to its logical conclusion as before issue of the said advertisement neither any exercise for assessing the vacancies for recruitment was undertaken nor a reasonable ratio was maintained between the actual vacancies available and the persons called for interview. Further it was observed therein that departmental qualified candidates/diploma holders/Trade Unions were pressing hard for promotion of Non -Executive to the Executive Cadre as also for regularisation and they had shown their resentment -to the recruitment being undertaken pursuant to advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure -4. Besides the aforesaid factors which prompted the authorities of the Coal India Limited in not proceeding ahead with the selection process they also referred to in the impugned order instructions received from the Ministry to undertake Special Recruitment Drive for filling up the backlog vacancies for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was finally concluded in the impugned order that in view of the Special Recruitment Drive and demand of the Departmental Candidate for promotion to Executive Cadre there will be hardly any scope for proceeding ahead with the selection process undertaken in response to the advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure 4 which was cancelled. Having issued the said order dated 9.3.2005, Annexure -7 the authorities published notice dated 31st December, 2005, Annexure -12 cancelling the selection process undertaken in response to advertisement dated 19.5.2001, Annexure -4.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Vishwamohan Kumar Sinha, with reference to the pleadings filed by him, namely, the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit as also the reply to the rejoinder submitted that Rule 3.15 of the Common Cadre Rules does not apply to the appointments on the post of Management Trainee in the Mining Discipline and the quota of direct recruits has no application to the case of the petitioners. In this connection, he has also referred to Rule 3.2 which provides for Initial Recruitment of the Executives as also to Rule 4.10 which provides for Promotional Opportunities of employees from Non -Executives to Executive Cadre.