Jharkhand High Court
Chinmay Bhakta vs The Central Coalfield Limited (A ... on 13 May, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
LP.A. No. 35 of 2024
1. Chinmay Bhakta, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Haridas Bhakta, resident
of Village- Dhakuria, P.O.- Dhakuria Kalibari, P.S.-Gaighata Beside Chand
Para Ind Railway Station Ticket Counter, District-North 24 Parganas (West
Bengal).
2.Aman Rajak, aged about 30 years, son of Late Bandhan Baitha, resident of
Village-Hetkonki, P.O.-Ichapuri, P.S.-Pithoria, District-Ranchi.
3.Subrata Mondal, aged about 43 years, son of Sunil Kumar Mondal,
resident of Vill. Par Krishna Chandra Pur, P.O- Krishna Chandra Pur, P.S.-
Bagdah, District- North 24 Parganas (West Bengal).
4.Indrajit Sarkar, aged about 34 years, son of Sri Narendra Nath Sarkar,
resident of Village- Rasulpur, P.O.- Bhanderkola, P.S.- Gopal Nagar,
District- North 24 Parganas (West Bengal).
5. Chhotelal Das, aged about 36 years, son of Sri Saheblal Das, resident of
Quarter No. 102/C Jenyns Road (Railway Colony), P.O.- Liluah, P.S.- Belur,
District- Howrah (West Bengal).
6. Anju Anima Minz, aged about 30 years, daughter of Suhsil Minz, resident
of Village- Balarampur (Narkopi), P.O.- Narkopi, P.S.- Bero Balarampur,
District- Ranchi.
7. Raja Hari, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Bahadur Hari, resident of
Village- Bermo-4, P.O. & P.S.- Gandhinagar, District- Bokaro.
... ... Writ Petitioners /Appellants
Versus
1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.- Darbhanga House, Town and
District-Ranchi.
2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga
House Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.- Darbhanga House, Town and District-
Ranchi. ... ... Respondents /Contesting Respondents
3. Deepak Singh Munda, son of Shri Shivtahal Munda, resident of Villag
Barwe Basanti, P.O.- Dahu, P.S.- Ormanjhi District- Ranchi.
4. Vikrama Ram, son of Sri Saryug Ram, resident of Village-Bhanachak,
Majhaulia, P.S.- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran (Bihar).
5. Arjun Kumar, son of Sri Parmatma Prasad, resident of Qtr. N2/125,
Sunderpur, P.O.- Sunderpur, P.S.- Lanka, District- Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)
... ... Writ Petitioners/ Proforma Respondents
with
LP.A. No. 457 of 2023
1. Sunil Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad, resident of
Rauna Khurd Usarahiya, P.O.-Bela, P.S.-Cholapur, District-Varanasi (U.P.).
2. Deepak Diwakar, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Dhani Ram Diwakar,
resident of House No.366, Rana Pratap Nagar (Kanpur), P.O. & P.S.-
Rawatpur Gawn, District-Kanpur Nagar (U.P.).
3. Dharmendar Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Indrajeet Ram, resident
of C-94, Gali No.5, Swami Shradhanand Colony, Near Bhalswa Dairy, P.O.
& P.S- Samaipur, District-North West Delhi (Delhi).
... ... Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1.The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.-Darbhanga House, Town and
District- Ranchi.
2.The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Gonda, Town and District-Ranchi.
... ... Respondents/Contesting Respondents
3.Ravi Shankar Bharti, son of Shri Nanad Lal Ram, resident of Village-
Assoiya, P.O.-Mirzapur, P.S.- Marhowrha, District-Chhapra, Saran (Bihar),
Correspondence Address NT-1/353 Armapur Estate, P.O. & P.S.-Armapur,
District-Kanpur (U.P.).
4.Nilambar Sharma, son of Shri Bharatjee Sharma, resident of 13 No.
Dangal Near Panipul, P.O. & P.S.- Aandal, District Burdwan (W.B.).
5.Jayesh Ranjan, son of Shri Deo Nath Ram, resident of Village- Surat
Chapra, P.O.- Asahani, P.S.- Rasulpur, District-Saran (Bihar).
6.Kanhaiya Lal, son of Shri Hari Lal, resident of Village-Khujjhi, P.O. &
P.S.- Karpa College Dobhi, District-Jaunpur (U.P.).
7.Deepak Kumar Yadav, son of Shri Ramsingh Yadav, resident of Village-
Kokta, P.O.-Mahuapur Barahalganj, P.S.-Mahuapur, District-Gorakhpur
(U.P.)
8.Purushottam Singh, son of Shri Parshuram Singh, resident of Pani Tanki,
Shyambandh, Canteen Para, P.O. & P.S.- Asansol (M. Corp.), District-
Burdwan (W.B). ... ... Writ Petitioners/ Proforma Respondents
with
LP.A. No. 36 of 2024
Priobroto Guha, aged about 35 years, son of Pijush Kant Guha, resident of
Village- Rajdanga Main Road, BL-FB, PLNo.37, EKTP, P.S.-Kasba, P.O.
Kasba, District- North 24 P.G.S., Kolkata (West Bengal).
... ... Writ Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.-Darbhanga House, Town and
District-Ranchi.
2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.- Darbhanga House, Town and District-
Ranchi. ... ... Respondents/Contesting Respondents
3. Sunil Kumar Paswan, son of Shri Phudan Paswan, resident of Village-
Bataua, P.O.- Harari, P.S.- Rudrapur, District- Madhubani, (Bihar).
4. Girish Upadhyay, son of Shri Awadesh Upadhyay, resident of Village-
Mathil Upadhyay, P.O. & P.S.- Pindi, District- Deoria (Uttar Pradesh).
2 LPA No. 35 of 2024
&
Batch cases
5.Rupesh Kumar Singh, son of Shri Brijanand Singh, resident of Village-
Kausar, P.O.- Khemadei, P.S. Khemadei, District- Deoria, (Uttar Pradesh).
6. Sunder Lal, son of Shri Babu Lal, resident of Village- Basni Kharia, P.O.-
Palri Shidha Tehsil- Pipar, P.S.- Palri Shidha, District- Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
7. Narendra Singh Tomar, son of Shri Surat Singh Tomar, resident of 16-
Vyom Prasth, G.M.S. Road, P.O. & P.S. Kanwali, District- Dehradun
(Uttarakhand).
8. Mukesh Tomar, son of Shri Mohan Tomar, resident of 16 Vyom Prasth
G.M.S. Road, P.O. & P.S.- Kanwali, District- Dehradun (Uttarakhand).
9.Pokhar Mal Yadav, son of Shri Panchu Ram Yadav, resident of Village-
Junsiya, P.O.- Itawa via-Badhal, P.S.- Itawa, District- Jaipur (Rajasthan).
10. Vivek Mishra, son of Shri Prahlad Mishra, resident of Village- Phephna,
P.O.- Ballia, P.S.- Phehpana, District- Ballia (Uttar Pradesh).
11. Sanjiv Kumar Panday, son of Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, resident of 71
Janakpuri Colony Barkheda Nathu, P.O. & P.S.- Neelbad, District- Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh). ... ... Writ Petitioners/ Proforma Respondents
with
L.P.A No.40 of 2024-
1. Manik Saren, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Binod Saren, resident of
Village-Sode Para, P.O.- Boinchi, P.S. - Pandua, District- Hooghly (West
Bengal).
2. Gurudayal Verma, aged about 32 years, son of Sri Prabhudyal Verma,
resident of H.No.51D Pandey Colony, East Adarsh Nagar, Jamshedpur,
P.O. & P.S.- Sonari, District - East Singhbhum.
... ... Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.- Darbhanga House, Town and
District-Ranchi.
2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi P.O.-G.P.O. P.S. Darbhanga House, Town and District-Ranchi.
... ... Respondents/Contesting Respondents
3. Koleshwar Paswan, son of Shri Narayan Paswan, resident of Village- Achal
Jamu, P.O.- Bishungarh, P.S.- Bishungarh, District-Hazaribagh.
4. Himmat Singh, son of Sri Nawal Kishore, resident of Ward No.1 Mandrella
Road, Jatawas, P.O. & P.S.- Bagar, District-Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
5. Ravindra Kumar Ravi, son of Sri Jhari Ram, resident of Village-Kudaga
Kala, P.O.- Semra, P.S.-Chainpur, District- Palamua (Jharkhand).
6. Rupesh Kumar Shaw, son of Sri Dashrath Shaw, resident of 26 Champa
Road, P.O.-Rishra, P.S.-Rishra, District- Hooghly (West Bengal).
7. Ajeet Kumar Singh, son of Sri Anil Singh, resident of Village- Shahpur,
P.O.- Shahpur, Via Garwal, P.S.-Garwar, District - Ballia (Uttar Pradesh).
3 LPA No. 35 of 2024
&
Batch cases
8. Mani Ram Rajwar, son of Sri Niranjan Rajwar, resident of Village-Haratu,
P.O.-Sikidiri, P.S. Ranchi, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
9. Abhishek Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Kallu Yadav, resident of SA 17/64
Pahariya Nakki Ghat Saranath, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh).
... ... Writ Petitioners/Proforma Respondents
With
L.P.A No.71 of 2024
1. Swadeep Kumar Raman, aged about 32 years, son of Sri Laljee Raman @
Laljee Ram Bucchi, resident of Village- Mundwal, P.O. & P.S.-
Fatehullahpur, District- Ghazipur (Uttar Pradesh).
2. Dharmendra Choudhary, aged about 41 years, son of Shri Ram Chandra
Choudhary, resident of Village-Mathon Beliyad, Dhanbad, Mathon Market
Area-4, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
3. Dheeraj Kumar Gautam, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Ramesh Ram,
resident of Village-Kharbadih, P.O. & P.S. - Kharbadih, District-Ghazipur
(Uttar Pradesh).
4. Kartick Das, aged about 44 years, son of Shri Naba Kumar Das, resident of
Suri Vevikananda Palli, P.O. & P.S.-Suri, District-Birbhum (West Bengal).
5. Dashrath Kannouja, aged about 49 years, son of Shri Raj Kumar
Kannounja resident of Village-Mahmoodpur, P.O.& P.S.-Mughalsarai,
District-Chandaulia (Uttar Pradesh).
... ... Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.- Gonda, Town and District-
Ranchi.
2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi P.O.-G.P.O. P.S. Gonda, Town and District-Ranchi.
... ... Respondents/Contesting Respondents
3. Rahul Mourya, son of Shri Santosh Mourya, resident of Village-Dr.
Ambedkar Colony Jhansi Road Shivpuri, P.O.-Mirzapur, P.S-Shivpuri,
District-Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh).
4. Surenjit Pal, son of Shri Pareshnath Pal, resident of Village-Majigram, P.O.
Majigram, P.S.-Mongalkote, District-Burdwan (West Bengal).
5. Santu Halder, son of Shri Rajeshwar Haldar, resident of Village Kachlia,
P.O.-Gobardanga P.S. Habra, District-North 24 Parganas (West Bengal)_.
6. Binod Kumar Choudhary, son of Late Parasnath Choudhary, resident of
House No.58, BL/No.14, P.O.-Kankinara, P.S.- Jagdal, District- North 24
Parganas (West Bengal).
7. Sanjit Sarkar, son of Shri Sushil Sarkar, resident of Village-Kalyandaha,
P.O. Kalyandaha. P.S. Chapra, District-Nadia (West Bengal).
... ... Writ Petitioners/Proforma Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 98 of 2024
4 LPA No. 35 of 2024
&
Batch cases
1. Pradeep Kumar Rawat, aged about 36 years, son of Narayan Ram Rawat,
resident of Mohalla-Gorabazar, Chhota Shiv Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Pir Nagar,
District-Ghazipur (Uttar Pradesh).
2. Sunil Mahato, aged about 33 years, son of Haradhan Mahto, resident of
Village-Baligara, P.O.-Ban Baligara, P.S.-Purulia Muffasil, District-Purulia,
(West Bengal).
3. Bhagyadhar Bauri, aged about 42 years, son of Late Natu Bauri, resident of
Village-Huchukpara, P.O.-Rakhera, P.S.-Hura, District-Purulia, (West
Bengal).
4.Amit Karmakar, aged about 36 years, son Mathur Karmakar, resident
of Village-Joynagar, P.O.-Hutmura, P.S.-Hutmura, District-Purulia, (West
Bengal). --- --- Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.-Darbhanga House, Town and
District-Ranchi.
2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Gonda, Town and District-Ranchi.
3. Manager (Personnel/Recruitment) CCL, Darbhanga House Ranchi, P.O.-
GPO, P.S.-Darbhanga House, Town and District-Ranchi.
--- --- Respondents/Contesting Respondents
4. Animesh Rajak, aged about 38 years, son of Late Jagdish Rajak, resident of
Vill. Manguria, P.O.- Maguria -Lalpur, P.S. Hura, Disrict-Purulia, (West
Bengal).
--- --- Writ Petitioner/Performa Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 117 of 2024
1. Vijay Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Nanku Ram, resident of Village-
Khapradih, Gali Mohalla, Bhatha Para, P.O.-Kirit, P.S.-Nawagarh, District-
Jangir Champa, (Chhattisgarh).
2. Raj Kiran, aged about 34 years, son of Dev Charan, resident of Village -
Khapradih, P.O.-Kirit, P.S.-Nawagarh, District-Jangir Champa,
(Chhattisgarh). --- --- Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.-Darbhanga House, Town and
District-Ranchi.
2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Darbhanga House, Town and District-Ranchi.
3. Manager (Personnel/Recruitment) CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-
GPO, P.S.-Darbhanga House, Town and District-Ranchi.
--- --- Respondents/Contesting Respondents
4. Surendra Kumar Das, son of Garib Rabi Das, resident of 129B, Karl Marx
Sarani Khidderpore, P.O.-Khidderpore, P.S.-Watgunj, District-Kolkata
(West Bengal).
5. Sant Kumar, son of Nandu Chauhan, resident of Madhuban, Parasbaniya,
5 LPA No. 35 of 2024
&
Batch cases
P.O.-Nadu Khurkee, P.S.-Madhuban, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
--- --- Writ Petitioners/Performa Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 118 of 2024
Bikram Paswan, aged about 35 years, son of Balmiki Paswan, resident of
Sodepur, 9/10 no. Line Par Colony near Kali Mandir, P.O. Kulti, P.S. Kulti
M. District-Paschim Burdwan, (West Bengal).
--- --- Writ Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.-Gonda, Town and District-
Ranchi.
2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Gonda, Town and District-Ranchi.
3. Manager (Personnel/Recruitment) CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-
GPO, P.S.-Gonda, Town and District-Ranchi.
--- --- Respondents/Contesting Respondents
4. Anand Kumar, son of Shri Ram, resident of Village-Sakara, P.O. & P.S.-
Husenpur, District-Ghazipur (Uttar Pradesh).
--- --- Writ Petitioner/Performa Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Adamya Kerketta, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
[in LPA No. 35 of 2024]
: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
[in rest of the cases]
--------
Dated 13th May 2024
Per Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
I.A. No. 829 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 35 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 7845 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 457 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 830 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 36 of 2024
With
6 LPA No. 35 of 2024
&
Batch cases
I.A. No. 929 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 40 of 2924
With
I.A. No. 1254 of 2024 in LP.A. No. 71 of 2024
With
I.A. No.1924 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 98 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 2326 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2024
With
I.A. No.2327 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 118 of 2024
These interlocutory applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
2. We are satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants in these applications and, therefore, the delays caused in preferring these Letters Patent Appeals are condoned.
3. All the aforesaid interlocutory applications are, accordingly, allowed.
L.P.A. No. 35 of 2024With L.P.A. No.457 of 2023 With L.P.A. No.36 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 40 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 71 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 98 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 117 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 118 of 2024
4. This batch of Letters Patent Appeals challenges the decision of the Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L) to abandon the recruitment process and not to appoint Security Guards against the existing vacancies as notified under the Employment Notice vide Reference No. CCL/GM (P&IR/R) 527/2014/7104 dated 25th September 2014.
5. Just to indicate, the writ petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7115 of 2017 and batch cases for a direction for appointment on 7 LPA No. 35 of 2024 & Batch cases the post of Security Guard. This prayer was made in view of the decision dated 3rd December 2019 in Ref. No.CCL/Rect.SG/2019/3648 by which a part of the advertised vacancies for appointment of 500 Security Guards was cancelled. The writ Court referred to "Lt. CDR M. Ramesh v. Union of India' and others" (2018) 16 SCC 195 and "Shankarsan Das v. Union of India"
(1991) 3 SCC 47 and came to a conclusion that the appellants have no vested right over the advertised posts and they cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. The writ Court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 6th December 2022 holding as under:
6. It is well settled principle of law that a person does not have any vested right of appointment. Even selectee has no indefeasible right to appointment nor is State under duty to fill up vacancies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lt. CDR. M. Ramesh versus Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 16 SCC 195 while referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases, at paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof, has held as under:-
21. The first issue that arises is whether the petitioners have any vested right to claim that the result must be declared and if the petitioners are selected, they should be appointed. This Court in Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana held that merely because the Government had sent a requisition to UPSC to select the candidates for appointments, did not create any vested right in the candidate called for the interview to be appointed. It was also held that the authority which has the power to specify the method of recruitment must be deemed to have the power to revise and substitute the same. The Court, however, also laid down that at best the Government may be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. This view has been followed in a large number of cases. In Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Patna, this Court held that there is a distinction between selection and appointment. It was held that a person who is successful in the selection process, does not acquire any right to be appointed automatically. Such a person has no indefeasible right of appointment. 22. It is, thus, well settled that merely because a person has been selected does not given that person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment. As far as the present cases are concerned, results have not been declared and even the selection process is not complete. As such, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioners have no enforceable right to claim that the result should be declared or that they should be appointed if found meritorious.
7. Thus, it is well settled now that a person has got no right to be appointed. It is also the prerogative of the respondents to cancel an appointment process and keep any post vacant, but the decision not to fill up the post or keeping the posts vacant or that of cancelling the advertisement must be bonafide and should be for just and appropriate reasons.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shankarsan Das versus Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 while referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases, at paragraph 7 thereof, has held as under:-
7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation 8 LPA No. 35 of 2024 & Batch cases to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.
9. The reasons for cancelling should not be malafide or arbitrary or whimsical. Keeping that principle in view, I have gone through the reasonings, which have been given. Though the document, which the respondents have annexed, which suggests that the advertisement has been cancelled, is in one line only indicating that the respondents have cancelled the recruitment process but from the writ petitions and annexures filed therewith, it is clear that the petitioners were served with the information and reasons as to why recruitment process has been cancelled. Annexure 8 in W.P.(S) No. 7115 of 10 2017 suggests that following are grounds for cancelling the recruitment process:-
... That a large number of workmen have been identified surplus strength of Manpower in the course of drafting Manpower Budget for the year 2017-18. Such excess manpower has been decided to be adjusted against existing vacancies of Security Personnel. ... Further, keeping in view the large number of pending applications for appointment on compassionate ground, a policy decision has been taken to make appointment of suitable candidates on compassionate ground against the existing vacancies of Security Personnel.
... In this view of the fact, presently the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.CCL/GM(P&IR/R)/527/ 2014/ 7104 dated 25.09.2014 has been kept in abeyance in order to exhaust the existing vacancies by making appointment on compassionate ground and by adjustment of existing manpower. If any vacancy still persists thereafter, the management may decide to proceed with a proper selection process.
9. The aforesaid reasonings, by no means, can be said to be arbitrary and whimsical. The grounds taken are logical and acceptable. As there are excess manpower in Central Coalfields Limited, they intend to adjust the excess manpower against the existing vacancies of Security Personnel otherwise such excess manpower had to be retrenched or if they are allowed to continue, there would be financial loss to the contrary. Further the ground that there are number of applicants for compassionate appointment for which they need the posts is also a justified ground to cancel the recruitment process.
10. The respondents have taken a plea that so far as other posts are concerned, Central Coalfields Limited had gone ahead to fill up the said posts. This argument does not find favour to the petitioners, as those posts of accountants etc. are technical posts where people with technical expertise needs to be appointed.
11. Since the petitioners do not have any vested right over the posts and they cannot claim appointment by way of right, decision of the respondents to cancel the recruitment process has to be weighed in the touchstone of reasonableness in the instant case. I find that the grounds and reasons given are 9 LPA No. 35 of 2024 & Batch cases justified and not arbitrary. Thus, I find no merits in these writ petitions. These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
6. Briefly stated, the C.C.L published an Employment Notice vide Reference No. CCL/GM(P&IR)/R)527/2014/7104 dated 25th September 2014 for appointment of Security Guards, Assistant Revenue Inspectors and Accountants. In the Advertisement dated 25th September 2014, there were 278 backlog vacancies for Scheduled Caste candidates and 32 vacancies were earmarked for ex-servicemen. On 27th November 2015, a Corrigendum was issued by the C.C.L. inviting fresh applications for the post of Security Guards from the candidates who had already submitted Online applications but hard copy of their applications were not as per the conditions under the Advertisement dated 25th September 2014. This is admitted at the Bar that the facts pleaded in all the writ petitions were similar and the same question in law has been raised by the appellants to challenge the decision of the C.C.L not to make any appointment on the post of Security Guard.
7. The appellants have pleaded that they appeared in the written examination and were called for physical measurement on qualifying the written examination. The appellants have brought on record the information provided to them through R.T.I whereunder it was disclosed that the appointment against the notified vacancies for Security Guards shall be filled up through compassionate appointment. In fact, this is not disputed that on 14th August 2017 the C.C.L decided to make appointments on compassionate ground against the notified vacancies of Security Guards.
Then came the decision dated 3rd December 2019 under the heading "Notice regarding cancellation of the advertisement published for the posts of Security Guard". This decision simply records that the advertisement for 500 posts of Security Guards vide Employment Notice dated 25th September 2019 stands cancelled due to administrative reasons. This decision was explained by the C.C.L before the writ Court stating as under:-
" ...That a large number of workmen have been identified surplus strength of Manpower in the course of drafting Manpower Budget for the year 2017-
18. Such excess manpower has been decided to be adjusted against existing 10 LPA No. 35 of 2024 & Batch cases vacancies of Security Personnel.
... Further, keeping in view the large number of pending applications for appointment on compassionate ground, a policy decision has been taken to make appointment of suitable candidates on compassionate ground against the existing vacancies of Security Personnel.
... In this view of the fact, presently the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.CCL/GM(P&IR/R)/527/ 2014/ 7104 dated 25.09.2014 has been kept in abeyance in order to exhaust the existing vacancies by making appointment on compassionate ground and by adjustment of existing manpower. If any vacancy still persists thereafter, the management may decide to proceed with a proper selection process."
8. The stand taken by the C.C.L has been recorded by the writ Court as under:
"Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents led by Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta submitted that whether to recruit or not to recruit is absolutely the prerogative of the employer, which cannot be questioned. Employer has right to abandon any recruitment process. No one has any right to be appointed. Thus, petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the decision wherein Central Coalfields Limited has decided to abandon and cancel the recruitment process. It is their contention that the ground for cancellation is cogent and cannot be said to be arbitrary. As per them, there is a large number of workmen in Central Coalfields Limited, who were identified to be surplus. When it came to the notice that there was surplus manpower, it was decided that the excess manpower must be adjusted against the existing vacancy of Security Personnel. Further, there are large number of dependents seeking appointment on compassionate ground, so a policy decision was taken to appoint the applicants of compassionate ground against the existing vacancies of Security Guards. Thus, a conscious decision was taken by the Directors of the Company not to proceed with the advertisement to fill the posts of Security Personnel. So far as appointing Accountants and others, they submit that these are technical posts, thus, the respondents proceeded. Mr. Mehta further submits that the selection process was in three folds, first a written test, thereafter physical test and the third step was interview and in this 8 case only the written test was conducted and the rest of the test processes were yet to be conducted."
9. No candidate has a vested right for appointment and the employer can decline to make appointment even on the existing vacant posts or of the candidate enlisted in the select list provided there is a valid reason to support the decision. Therefore, the High Court shall not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue mandamus unless it is demonstrated that the decision is arbitrary or whimsical or not authorized in law. In "Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors." 2006 (10) SCC 261 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill up them and unless a 11 LPA No. 35 of 2024 & Batch cases discrimination is made in filling up the vacancies or arbitrariness is manifest, no candidate shall have any legal right for a writ. Much before that, in "Shankarsan Das" the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab."
10. In "Shankarsan Das" the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the decision not to fill up the vacancies is to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. In "Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway" (2019) 12 SCC 798 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that those who were successful and declared pass would have a reasonable expectation that they shall be appointed. In our opinion, the appellants may not have any vested right but the C.C.L should give some justifiable non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the posts.
11. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that by importing extraneous reason which is not found in the Advertisement notice dated 25th September 2014 the C.C.L attempted to change the rules of the game mid-way. It is submitted that there are experience requirements for the notified vacancies that cannot be fulfilled if appointments are made on compassionate ground. The explanation offered by the C.C.L that it has surplus workmen is too vague. The Advertisement dated 25th September 2014 notified a total of 500 vacancies for the Security Guard; about 278 posts are backlog vacancies for the Scheduled Caste candidates and 32 vacancies were earmarked for ex-servicemen. Rightly contended, the posts 12 LPA No. 35 of 2024 & Batch cases earmarked for ex-servicemen and backlog vacancies for the Scheduled Caste candidates cannot be consumed through compassionate appointments and, that too, to be made in the future. The appellants were called for physical measurement.
12. In our opinion the decision taken by the C.C.L. is arbitrary and cannot be countenanced in law, and we are inclined to make this order applicable also to the non-petitioners and the further process for appointment of the Security Guards should commence soon.
13. In view of the above, the decision of the C.C.L dated 3rd December 2019 in Ref. No.CCL/Rect.SG/2019/3648 is quashed.
14. Consequently, these Letters Patent Appeals are allowed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty 13 LPA No. 35 of 2024 & Batch cases