Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Prasad & Ors. vs Coal India Ltd. & Ors. on 27 February, 2013
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 633 of 2005
Surendra Prasad & others.......... ...... Petitioners
Versus
Coal India Limited & others . ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Sahani, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv.
15/27.2.2013The petitioners have grievance that they were not being selected to the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee) while similarly situated persons or juniors to them has been granted such promotion. The petitioners have faced written test conducted by the respondents for the said post as per the advertisement contained at Annexure2 in which test was held for two papers i.e. General Aptitude/Awareness and Technical Aptitude/Professional knowledge. The petitioners have a grievance as there was no break up mark indicated but persons junior to them had been selected.
The respondents had earlier filed counter affidavit and by the order dated 9th July, 2012 they were categorically asked to file an affidavit showing the criteria fixed for grant of such promotion on the promotional post, marks obtained by the petitioners as well as other candidates by way of comparative chart. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 4th February, 2013, a chart has been enclosed showing 200 marks for two written test papers and 40 maximum marks for interview. The name of petitioner no.1, Surendra Prasad is reflected at serial no. 58 . The name of petitioner no.4, Ramsevak Prasad is reflected at serial no. 52 and the name of petitioner no.5, Gopal Ram is reflected at serial no. 71 and the other petitioners are also shown in the Chart.
It is the contention of the respondents that the persons were required to fulfill 50% qualifying marks for being eligible for promotion. However, it appears from the said chart that though four of the petitioners have scored less than 50% but the petitioner no. 5 has been shown to have scored 130 marks which is more than 80% of the maximum marks 240, therefore the affidavit of the respondents are still vague and the respondents have tried to be evasive the reply.
In that view of the matter, categorical reply is not filed in terms of the order dated 9th July, 2012.
2 Accordingly, put up this case after three weeks in order to enable the respondents to file categorical reply. If the categorical reply is not filed within three weeks, then the respondents will have to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500/ to the petitioner.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) jk