SANJEEV KUMAR RAHA Vs. COAL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dated 11.04.2011 by which the appellant's/writ petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed.

(3.) THE petitioner's contention is that the petitioner was senior but two Stipend Athletes R.K. Pathak and Rashmi Shanta Baxla who were engaged as Stipent Athlete/Player subsequent to the petitioner, were appointed on the post of Clerical Grade -III and thereby the petitioner has been discriminated and his claim has been ignored. The petitioner made several representations raising his grievance and ultimately, the Director (Personnel), C.C.L., vide its letter dated 17.04.1997 made recommendation for absorption of the petitioner in Clerical Grade -III. When in spite of such recommendation the petitioner was not offered appointment, then petitioner filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 196 of 1999 (R) which was disposed of by the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench vide order dated 25.01.2001 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment/absorption in the service of respondent -Central Coalfields Limited. The petitioner submitted representation again which was considered by the committee and petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that the athlete R.K. Pathak and Rashmi Shanta Baxla were having better merit as athlete than to the merit of the petitioner and, therefore, rejected the petitioner's representation holding that petitioner is only a runner and also that his services are not required in the company. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1976 of 2001. This writ petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge after observing that it is admitted case that the petitioner was never given appointment against any sanctioned post and there is no legal right of the petitioner either for appointment or absorption on the post. The learned Single Judge also observed that petitioner's own case is that he was appointed by the C.C.L. Sports Club and, therefore, his claim against the Central Coalfields Limited is not maintainable because of the reason that the C.C.L. Sports Club and Central Coalfields Limited both are different entities and because of the appointment by the C.C.L. Sports Club, petitioner cannot claim appointment in the Central Coalfields Limited.