NAND KISHORE SINGH Vs. COAL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo. No. C - II/C5A(I)/ 50254/394 dated 26th October, 1999 passed by respondent No. 2 Director (Personnel). Coal India Ltd. Calcutta, whereby and where -under in compliance of the order dated 16.9.1999 passed in CWJC No. 1244/98(R), claim of the petitioners for their promotion to E -2 Grade has been rejected and further for a direction to the respondents to promote both the petitioners in E -2 Grade maintaining their seniority and granting consequential benefits.

(2.) FACTS of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioners were appointed as Legal Inspector in Technical and Supervisory Grade -A in 1991. They completed their requisite training. Petitioners are governed by common coal cadre of the Coal India Ltd, which deals with the procedure for filing up the executive post from the non - executive posts. For Legal Discipline the minimum qualification fixed for promotion to E -2 Grade (Law Officer) is that an incumbent should be a Law Graduate and having three years experience in Technical and Supervisory Grade -A. In 1995 petitioners were directed to attend the Coaching Programme for promotion to the Executive Cadre of Legal Discipline. Petitioners alongwith others appeared in the qualifying examination in 1995 and thereafter interview of the successful candidates who passed written test was held and the merit list was prepared. It is stated that despite the fact that petitioners did better in the written test as also in the interview, their names were placed much below than that of other candidates and some of the candidates were accordingly promoted to Executive Grade -2. In 1996 by Office Order dated 13.7.1996 four more Legal .Inspectors were promoted to the post of Law Officers in E -2 Grade.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Sahanl, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground of discrimination inasmuch as other similarly situated persons in the same panel have been given promotion even after May, 1997 and they are enjoying the said privilege. Learned counsel submitted that Mr. N.V. Dannial who being Senior Personal Assistant posted at South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. was not having required qualification and was earlier debarred to appear in qualifying examination but subsequently allowed to appear in the examination and he was given promotion. Similarly, four other candidates out of the said panel were given promotion vide Office Order dated 21.1.1996 and 13.7.1996. It is contended that five more persons were given promotion on 31.3.1997. In 1998 Mr. A. Shukla out of the said panel was also promoted on 22.3.1998. According to the learned counsel therefore decision of the respondents refusing to grant promotion on the ground of lapse of the panel is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and mala fide.