SUNIL KUMAR PASWAN Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In these writ petitions, petitioners have prayed to quash the decision dtd. 3/12/2019 contained in Ref. No.CCL/Rect./SG/2019/3648 taken by the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited, wherein they have decided to cancel the advertisement published for recruitment of 500 Security Guards vide Employment Notice No.CCL/G.M.(P&IR/R/527/2014/7104 dtd. 25/9/2014. Petitioners also pray to appoint them on the post of Security Guards as they have applied pursuant to the advertisement and fulfilled all the criteria for being appointed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Central Coalfields Limited had published an advertisement No.CCL/G.M.(P&IR/R/527/2014/7104 dtd. 25/9/2014 through which they decided to recruit and appoint 500 Security Guards and persons in other technical posts, like, Accountant etc. Written test was conducted and these petitioners duly qualified the written test, but, thereafter the Central Coalfields Limited went silent and did not proceed with the recruitment process as a result of which petitioners had to approach this Court by filing these writ petitions. This Court by order dtd. 28/11/2019 had directed the Central Coalfields Limited to take a decision on the recruitment either way. Central Coalfields Limited, thereafter decided to cancel the recruitment so far as it related to appointment of 500 Security Guards is concerned. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid decision is absolutely illegal, as just because they had approached the High Court, the aforesaid decision was taken. Their contention is that the respondents, on one hand, went on with the appointment of other technical posts, but so far as Security Guards are concerned, they have abandoned the process, which is arbitrary. Their claim is that Central Coalfields Limited should proceed with the recruitment process and appoint the petitioners. Lastly they argued that the order is non-speaking and thus, cancellation of the process can be treated to be arbitrary as it does not fulfill the requirement of reasonableness.