BINOD DOM S/O LATE RAJENDRA DOM PRESENT RESIDENT AT KEDLA 3 NO. DHAWRA, P.O.KEDLA, P.S.MANDU, DISTRICT RAMGARH (JHARKHAND) Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 08.07.2006 and 19.06.2006 (Annexure-9 & 10) whereby and where under the case of the petitioner for employment under clause 9.5.0(III) has been rejected most illegally on the ground of delay and also for issuance of a further appropriate order or direction commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner in their services as also for doing consignable and equitable justice o the petitioner.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to cause to filing of the writ petition are that the father of petitioner late Rajendra Dom was working as a Sweeper in M/s C.C. Ltd. Unfortunately, the father of petitioner died in harness on 07.03.1998 and mother of the petitioner died on 10.07.1994. The information regarding the death of his father was given to respondent company on 25.05.1998. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged about 15 year old and just after the death of his father petitioner requested before the respondent that his name may be kept in live roster in accordance with Para 9.5.0(III) of N.C.W.A.VI. Para 9.5.0 (III) of N.C.W.A.VI states that if a male dependent who is 12 year and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skills and qualification when he attend the age of 18 year. Accordingly, the petitioner after attaining majority requested the respondents to allow him to fill up the form and he formally submitted the application for employment on 30.08.200 The said application form which was duly authenticated by the respondents the petitioner's age was stated to be 18 years. Pursuant to the aforesaid application for employment, the respondent by term of letter dated 09.11.2002, directed the petitioner to appear before the unit level Screening Committee on 15.11.2002 along with all the document for interview/physical verification examination. After the interview the petitioner was shocked to receive a letter dated 08.07.2006 whereby and whereudner the petitioner was communicated with the rejection order dated 19.06.2006 in which the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground of delay. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground of rejection is wholly illegal and arbitrary in view of the settled principles of law and guidelines of N.C.W.A. The case of the petitioner is covered under Clause 9.5.0 (III) of N.C.W.A. and not under Clause 9.0 of N.C.W.A.VI. He submits that the petition of limitation is applicable only in case of Clause 9.2 and not in case of Clause 9.5.0(III). It was submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to keep the name of the petitioner in the live roster particularly when the petitioner had requested for the same. It was further submitted that ground of delay of 4 year is absurd and capricious and not tenable and the ground for rejection has no leg to stand and it is even supported by Sec. 6 of Limitation Act which provides that period of limitation for a minor starts from the date of cessation of the legal disability i.e. minority.