Telangana High Court
Dr. Vishnu Murthy Dubasi, vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., on 26 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.9914 OF 2017
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue any appropriate order or orders direction or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 (i) for not issuing the proceedings promoting the Petitioner as pathologist/specialist as an internal candidate from the cadre of General Duty Medical Officer by not promoting the Petitioner for Specialist (Pathologist) cadre despite the Respondents using services of the Petitioner in a vacant post of pathology / specialist from 16.05.2007 after completing the post graduation even approved note file order dated 30.12.2014 and competed DPC dated 05.03.2019 (ii) in not modifying the study Leave from date of last working day w.e.f. 05.04.2003 and in not rectifying the anomalies in E3 thereby and further maintenance of Inter-se-seniority; and (iii) not upgrading the Petitioner to Grade in E7 as per CIL Promotion Rules (2:1:1) i.e., Specialist : MBBS with Hospital administration MBBS with Specialty pursuant to the petitioner already fulfilling the eligible criteria in E6 grade GDMO as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, etc., and consequently direct the Respondents to and direct the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 (i) issue proceedings in pursuant to the Note File order of the departmental promotion committee dated 30.12.2014 and completed DPC on 05.03.2019 whereby the proposal for promotion of the petitioner as pathologist/specialist is approved as per the company rules and further to issue the proceedings promoting the Petitioner as pathologist/specialist as an internal candidate from the cadre of General Duty Medical Officer from 16.05.2007 as per Rules, (ii) to promote to his entitled grade in specialty; (iii) to modify the study Leave from date of last working day w.e.f.05.04.2003 and to rectify the anomalies in E3 and further maintenance of Inter-se-seniority; and (iv) to upgrade the Petitioner to Grade in E7 as per CIL Promotion Rules (2:1:1) i.e., Specialist : MBBS with Hospital administration : MBBS with Specialty pursuant to the 2 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 petitioner already fulfilling the eligible criteria in E6 grade GDMO and to provide all the service benefits attached to the post such as specialist cadre with effect from 16.5.2007, monetary benefits, fitment benefits specialist/pathologist general allowance etc retrospectively in the interest of justice and fair play pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Prayer is amended as per C.O. dt. 16/06/2023 in IA 01/2022 (i) declaring the action of Respondent 1 to 4 in not following in-service rules of the organization and not following Rule Of Reservation and in not following Roster system in April 2012 while going for external recruitment notification and in not promoting the Petitioner who is entitled for selection as a pathologist / specialist cadre (E3) Grade in the scale of RS.60,000/- to RS.1,80,000/- to maintain inter seniority fix above to Dr.K. Narayana Reddy E.C.No.0052691 specialist / pathologist E6 as illegal, arbitrary; (ii) declaring the action of Respondent 1 to 4 in not conducting Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) pursuant to the Note file approved by Board and in not promoting petitioner to E6/E4 with effect from 30.12.2014 in the interest of justice and fair play, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Mr. N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) appears for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Brief facts:
Petitioner is M.B.B.S, M.D. (Pathology), Dip.
Diabetology, Dip. Family Health and has P.G. Certificate in Pediatrics. Respondent Organization, SCCL, issued a 3 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 Notification to fill up the posts of General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) E-2 (Grade). Petitioner applied and got selected, he was appointed as GDMO vide proceedings, dated 25.10.1999, and he reported to duty on 16.11.1999 (Page No.20).
4. Petitioner made an application (dated 05.01.2003) for sanction of study leave to pursue Post Graduate Degree in Pathology, it was not agreed for administrative reasons (dated 26.02.2003, Page No.26). Thereupon, petitioner made representation dated 05.05.2003 (Page No.27) to respondent Company for grant of study leave, was granted study leave vide letter dated 26/27.08.2003 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Consequent upon fulfillment of the conditions (on submission of agreement bond), petitioner was relieved w.e.f. 15.07.2003 on loss of pay for a period of three years to enable him to pursue Post Graduate Degree in Pathology (letter dated 20.09.2003, page No.30). After completion of P.G. in M.D. Pathology, petitioner reported to duty on 07.02.2006 (Page No.23). A request for updation of qualifications in EPR, service records was made stating that he was awarded Post 4 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 Graduate Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Pathology from NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, during examinations held in November, 2006, and passed PG Diploma in Family Health from Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute (Deemed University), Chennai, during examinations held in April, 2004 and passed PG certificate course in Paediatrics.
5. On 02.08.2007 (Page No.52) petitioner was posted to work as senior medical officer in Pathology Department to take care of the blood bank and Pathology Department in Area hospital, Godavarikhani. By an office order dated 06/07.11.2011, the services of petitioner, Deputy Medical Superintendent, Area hospital, Ramagundam, were placed at the disposal of the Collector & District Magistrate/ President, Indian Red Cross Society Blood Bank (for short 'IRCS'), Adilabad, on full time basis for a period of 2 years for prompt treatment to children suffering from Thalassemia and Sickle Cell disorders vide Ref No.CRP/PER/C/13/2377, dated 22.10.2011, was relieved from 07.11.2011 and advised to report back to GM., RG-I on 08.11.2013 after completion of deputation. 5
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
6. Details of petitioner's promotions (as per counter affidavit paragraph No.4) are as follows: Petitioner with other Doctors (of his batch) was confirmed in E-2 grade, vide letter dated 19.01.2001.
(a) Date of Promotion as SR.MO/E3 Grade: 01.10.2005.
(b) Date of Promotion as Dy. Medical Superintendent, (GDMO): 01.04.2010/E-5 Grade.
(c) Date of Promotion as Medical Superintendent (GDMO):
01.04.2014/E-6 Grade.
7. On 02.08.2007, petitioner was promoted to E-3 Grade vide Office Order dated 30.03.2006 under the cadre scheme with notional effect from 01.10.2005 with monetary benefits from 07.02.2006.
8. Grievance of petitioner is that he is eligible to E-3 grade w.e.f. 01.04.2005 and not from 01.10.2005, his case has to be considered for promotion to E-3 grade in terms of promotion rules from 01.04.2005. Petitioner made 10 representations on various dates (Page Nos.31 to 43), the first representation is dated 15.10.2008 (Page No.31) and the last representation is dated 24.05.2010 (at Page No.43) seeking rectification of his date of promotion on par with 6 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 similarly situated persons, but was not found suitable, the same was communicated vide letter dated 02.04.2010.
9. Respondent Company issued Notification No.4/2012 dated 31.10.2012, calling for applications to fill up various specialist doctors posts, including one in the branch of Pathology (Page Nos.53 & 54, P15). Petitioner applied for the post of Pathologist as an internal/local/in-service candidate along with external/non-local candidates. Petitioner was not selected, he alleges that an external candidate one Dr. Narayana Reddy was appointed without considering Rule of Reservation (merit list dated 09.11.2012, Page Nos.57 to 59). Petitioner alleges to have made a representation dated 01.11.2012 to the authorities of respondent Company to consider his case for appointment as specialist doctor in Pathology branch in terms of Recruitment Rule(s), but was not considered.
10. Respondent Company issued a circular on 19.05.2014 (Page No.61) with regard to promotion policy for General Duty Medical Officer's promotion of specialists on acquiring PG Degree/PG Diploma qualification. 7
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 Petitioner's grievance is that as per clause (b) of the policy, he is entitled to the post of Pathologist as internal candidate, but he was not considered. Petitioner avers that he made several representations requesting respondent Company to issue proceedings to promote him as Specialist Doctor (Pathologist) retrospectively w.e.f. 16.05.2007, the date from which he claims to be performing/discharging duties as Pathologist in the vacant post of Pathology at Area Hospital, Ramagundum and IRCS, Mancherial.
11. By letter dated 01.11.2012 (P15) addressed to Chief Medical Officer (CMO), petitioner requested CMO of the organization to give an opportunity to work as a Pathologist as an internal candidate along with a bio-data. Subsequent to the letter, a Notification No.04 of 2012 was issued for Walk-in-Interview for specialist doctors. One K.Narayana Reddy was selected and appointed as Specialist Doctor in the branch of Pathology. It is alleged that respondent organization did not follow the recruitment rules and instead of selecting an internal candidate, it was filled up by an external candidate.
8
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
12. A Notification No.1 of 2014 (walk-in-interview) was issued for Specialist Doctors posts, by respondent organization, for various branches, including two posts as Dermatologists. It is alleged that after inducting two Doctors, two internal candidates made representations to be appointed as Dermatologists. Without there being a vacancy, the respondent Company appointed them on the basis of representations. Petitioner's grievance is that though he made a representation in 2012 to be appointed for the post of Pathologist (Specialist Doctor), he was not appointed in spite of petitioner working from 2007 as a Pathologist. That his case should have been considered as the case of Dermatologists who were appointed in 2014 on the basis of representations. The grievance of the petitioner is, a different yardstick is followed in his case.
13. Further grievance of the petitioner is that though the Coal India Limited (CIL) norms have been adopted by the respondent organization, petitioner, who was entitled for E5 and E7 Grades, was not given the Grades, as and when the petitioner was entitled to be given. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of adopting the ratio of 2:1:1 as 9 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 enumerated in CIL Growth Plan, respondent organization adopted the ratio of 2:1, which is improper. It is submitted that in spite of DPC note in the year 2014, his case was not considered for promotion and that his case be considered in terms of the note.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is M.B.B.S, M.D. (Pathology) Dip. Diabetology, Dip. Family Health and P.G. Certificate course in Pediatrics. That, pursuant to Notification to fill up the posts of General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) E-2 (Grade) in Respondent Company, petitioner applied, got selected, appointed as General Duty Medical Officer vide proceedings, dated 25.10.1999 and reported to duty on 16.11.1999. It is further submitted that petitioner's case was not considered for promotion to E3 grade due to an anomaly in considering the dates and as such, suffered injustice in further promotions.
15. It is submitted that in spite of DPC note in the year 2014, his case was not considered for promotion. It is pointed out that petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria in 10 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 E6 grade and not upgrading the petitioner to E7 Grade as per promotion rules in spite of having requisite qualifications is illegal and arbitrary.
16. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was discharging duties at SCCL, Area Hospital Blood Bank, from 16.05.2007 as Medical Officer in-charge, that the same is evident from the report of the inspecting officer dated 30.07.2007 (P31, page Nos.174-177). It is further submitted that though petitioner was working as a qualified pathologist from 16.05.2007, he was not promoted to the post of Pathologist, in spite of a Pathologist post falling vacant from 2003 (person who was posted as Pathologist at Ramakrishnapur left the job in 2003, recruited in year 2002).
17. It is submitted that pursuant to notification No.4/2012 petitioner made an application as internal local/in-service candidate along with external/non-local candidates and that an external/non-local candidate was appointed. It is further submitted that respondents had not followed the Recruitment Rules i.e., point 2(III), (IV) and 11 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 (VI), 6(a), (b) and 2.1, 3.1, 3.3 and 3.6.3 of Singareni Collieries Recruitment Rules. Inviting the attention of this Court to page No.53, page Nos.198 to 205, it is contended that petitioner being the lone internal local candidate in BC-B category, he ought to have been appointed as Specialist Doctor in Pathology branch.
18. It is submitted that respondent Company issued notification on 29.01.2014 to fill up various Specialist Doctors posts including that of Dermatologists. Petitioner alleges that after appointing two candidates, two internal candidates were appointed on the basis of their representations, even though vacancies were not available as Specialist Doctors in the branch of Dermatology in 2014. It is contended that in the case of petitioner, the said procedure was not adopted, in spite of his representation in 2012, prior to notification, thus petitioner was denied an opportunity.
19. Inviting the attention of this Court to Procgs.No.IRCS/ADB/2011, dated 08.11.2011 (page No.188), letter of recommendation of Collector and District 12 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 Magistrate, Adilabad, addressed to Chairman and Managing Director (page No.240), Section 122G of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (page No.265) and Form-26G i.e., renewal of licence to operate a blood bank issued by Joint Director, Drug Control Administration (January, 2014) (page No.266), it is submitted that petitioner was eligible for the post of Specialist Doctor, Pathology branch, and that his candidature was recommended by the Collector.
20. Inviting further attention to page No.259 i.e., Rules for Recruitment from External Candidates, it is submitted that internal candidates should be given preference and that Rule of Reservation should be followed, but non- adherence to both has affected the promotional avenues earmarked for internal candidates.
21. Attention of this Court is invited to the Office Order, dated 22.03.2012, of CIL. It is submitted that for promotion from E4 Grade to E5 Grade, respondent organization has to follow Note.ii (at page No.310). 13
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
22. It is further submitted that the Board of Directors in the Meeting held on 22.02.2013, after deliberations, accorded approval to adopt the CIL Career Growth Plan in SCCL by its proceedings in Ref.No.CRP/CS/054/123, dated 06.03.2013 (at page No.297). It is further submitted that the respondent organization did not adopt the promotion from E4 to E5 Grade and above Grades in the ratio of 2:1:1 (page No.310). That if only the respondent organization had adhered to the ratio, as enumerated in the Career Growth Plan of CIL adopted by SCCL, petitioner would have been promoted to higher grade and thus benefited.
23. It is further submitted that as per the CIL norms adopted, petitioner is entitled for E7 Grade. That instead of adopting the ratio of 2:1:1 as enumerated in CIL Growth Plan, respondent organization adopted the ratio of 2:1, which is improper. It is pointed out that the distinction between recruitment and promotion has not been considered and by way of walk-in-interviews, higher categories of posts have been filled up.
14
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
24. Placing reliance upon the representation submitted (at page No.238) to the Director (PA&W), SCCL, it is submitted that petitioner's request for issuing proceedings as a Pathologist retrospectively from the date of his deputation i.e., 08.11.2011 to IRCS Services (wherein his services were being utilized as Pathologist) was not considered. It is lastly submitted that petitioner's case was not considered by the respondent organization to promote him to the post of Specialist Doctor (Pathology branch) from 2007 in spite of the petitioner being eligible.
25. It is pointed out that the petitioner has suffered injustice and was denied the rightful benefits of being promoted in time, thus affecting his career prospects. It is further pointed out that for reasons best known to the respondent organization, the services rendered by the petitioner as Pathologist in various organizations was never considered for promoting the petitioner as Specialist Doctor in the branch of Pathology. That petitioner was treated unequally and thus Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated in the case of petitioner. 15
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
26. Learned counsel for respondent organization submitted that petitioner was appointed as General Duty Medical Officer vide proceedings, dated 25.10.1999 and he reported to duty on 16.11.1999 (Page No.20). It is further submitted that petitioner joined M.D. pathology without seeking permission for study leave, that as per circular dated 06.08.1999 (page No.s 114-115) the executive should have 5 years of service to get sanction of study leave. It is also submitted that petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for pursuing his Post graduate course and informed the respondent organization only when a telegram was sent to his address on 05.04.2003, that petitioner submitted an application dated 05.01.2003 for sanction of study leave to pursue Post Graduate Degree in Pathology.
27. Learned counsel submitted that having less than five years of service, without permission, joined the course, yet, the competent authority granted study leave on loss of pay or 3 years on 15.07.2003. It is further submitted that petitioner reported for duty on 07.02.2006. It is also submitted that petitioner's case was considered for 16 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 promotion as senior Medical Officer (E3) from Medical Officer under cadre scheme with other doctors on 01.04.2005 and found petitioner not suitable and the same was communicated vide letter dated 02.04.2010 after considering his representations, that in the DPC meeting held in 18.10.2005, petitioner's case was considered and promoted from 01.10.2005 notionally, with monetary benefits from 07.02.2006. It is also submitted that there was no anomaly in considering his case and that the anomaly is to be rectified cannot be accepted.
28. It is submitted that petitioner could not clear his Post Graduate Examination in first attempt and sought extension of leave for a period of 2 months from 01.05.2006 to 30.6.2006. It is further submitted that petitioner did not submit his PG Qualification immediately after acquiring. It is also submitted that mere acquisition of qualification does not give any vested right for promotion and monetary benefits until the academic qualifications are submitted to the management by the executives. 17
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
29. It is submitted that petitioner was posted as Senior Medical Officer (GDMO) in department of pathology to take care of Blood Bank at area hospital from 02.08.2007. it is further submitted that while in-charge of pathology department, a HIV reactive test result of swimming coach was communicated to Chief General Manager without confirmation, that subsequent results revealed patient was not reactive to HIV. It is also submitted that petitioner was doing private practice by tying with local laboratories and hence removed from inchargeship of the pathology department and was posted to work in Dispensary.
30. It is submitted that petitioner was deputed to work at Indian Red Cross Society Blood Bank (IRCS) Mancherial at request of District Collector from 22.10.2011 and that petitioner was bringing political influence to continue deputation at IRCS. It is further submitted that applications were invited from eligible internal medical officers for the post of Specialist Doctors (Pathology) on 23.05.2015, that no internal GDMO applied for the specialist doctor (pathology) including Petitioner. 18
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
31. It is submitted that filling up vacancies is subject to sanction of vacancies and as there was sufficient pathologists on the rolls of company no advertisements were give. It is further submitted that in the branches where there was shortage of specialist doctors company notified walk in interview. It is also submitted that appointment of specialist's doctors in case of internal candidates is treated as 'promotion' and in case of external candidates it is treated as 'recruitment'.
32. It is submitted that only SC/ST internal candidates have reservations, that reservation for BC's, Women, Local and non-local is applicable in case of recruitment. It is further submitted that from 2016 roster system is being followed in walk in interview for specialists in case of external recruitment. It is also submitted that petitioner cannot compare his specialization with other branches and it is only when vacancies arise they will be filled up in accordance with guidelines. That there are sufficient pathologists in the Company, three in number, that the 19 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 contention of petitioner he has to be promoted from the date of his deputation at IRCS is invalid and not tenable.
33. It is submitted that promotion will be issued only after completion of DPC proceedings and not on the note approved by competent authority. It is further submitted that representations of petitioner were examined and replies were sent accordingly to petitioner. It is also submitted that petition is devoid of merits and the contentions raised are untenable, invalid and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
34. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered the submissions.
35. Writ petition is filed in March, 2017, counter affidavit is filed in February, 2018, reply affidavit is filed on 18.09.2019. An application to amend the prayer was filed vide I.A.No.1 of 2019 (W.P.M.P.No.1 of 2019) on 17.09.2019. Further I.A.No.1 of 2022 came to be filed seeking amendment of prayer in December, 2022. Both the amendment applications were ordered on 16.06.2023. 20
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 The averments in the reply affidavit run into 35 pages and number of documents are annexed with the reply affidavit from page Nos.163 to 320. No additional counter affidavit is on record for the amended prayers and the reply affidavit by the respondent Company.
36. Petitioner was initially appointed as General Duty Medical Officer vide proceedings, dated 25.10.1999 and reported to duty on 16.11.1999. Petitioner with other Doctors (of his batch) was confirmed in E-2 grade, vide letter dated 19.01.2001.
37. It is evident observed from the record that petitioner joined M.D. pathology without seeking permission for study leave. It is evident form circular dated 06.08.1999 (page Nos.114-115) the executive should have 5 years of service to get sanction of study leave. Petitioner made an application dated 05.01.2003 for sanction of study leave. Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for pursuing his Post graduate course and informed the respondent organization only when a telegram was sent to his address on 05.04.2003.
21
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
38. The relevant clauses of the circular dated 06.08.1999 are as follows:
'Study Leave' will be granted to executives to prosecute higher studies which are considered to be in the Company's interest as provided under Leave Rules applicable to Executives. The following guidelines will be followed to consider grant of Study Leave to Executives.
1). The Executives who have completed 5 years and above service will be considered for grant of Study Leave on half pay for 2 years and those who have put in less than 5 years and more than 2 years service in the regular grade may be considered for grant of Study Leave on loss of pay.
2). 'Study Leave' to an executive may be extended on specific request made well in advance, for one year on loss of pay, over and above 2 years of Study Leave with half pay or on loss of pay to complete the course.
... ...
9). He should inform the Director (PA&W) through
proper channel about the result of his course soon after the publication of the results.
10). He will not have any claim for automatic promotion on acquiring the additional qualification.
11). He should meet all expenses towards travelling, study etc., and no expenses whatsoever will be borne by the Company.
12). The executives who have applied for sanction of Study Leave should not leave the station to prosecute the course before sanction of Leave is communicated to them.
39. On a perusal of the circular and the facts on record it is apparent that petitioner has proceeded to pursue his higher studies without seeking prior permission and has 22 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 not applied for sanction of study leave. An employee of the organization is bound by the conditions in the circular.
40. There is no rebuttal to the averments of counter affidavit that petitioner could not clear his Post Graduate Examination in first attempt and sought extension of leave for a period of 2 months from 01.05.2006 to 30.6.2006 and also to the averment that petitioner did not submit his PG Qualification immediately after acquiring. From a reading of clauses 9 & 10 of the circular it is clear that acquisition of qualification has to be intimated soon after the date of publication of results. As contended mere acquisition of higher degree does not give any vested right for promotion and monetary benefits until the academic qualifications are submitted to the management by the executives, this submission of the respondent counsel appears to be a valid submission and cannot be brushed aside. All these factors have to be considered when the representation of the petitioner is considered.
41. Petitioner was promoted to E-3 grade (Senior Medical Officer, GDMO) w.e.f. 01.10.2005. Petitioner's request to 23 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 consider his promotion from 01.04.2005 rectifying the anomaly in the date of promotion to E3 grade was rejected.
42. By a reply to representation dated 05.02.2010, for rectification of anomaly in the date of promotion to E3 grade and consideration to E4 grade, as per Executives promotion/study leave rules enforced from 18.07.1998 (Rules 3.3 & 4.2), the General Manager (Personnel) vide reference No.CRP/PER/C/025/716, dated 02.04.2010, held as follows:
"Your representation dated 05.02.2010 requesting -
(i) to rectify date of promotion to E-3 as 01.04.2005 (notional) instead of 1.10.2005
(ii) to consider your study period (loss of pay) as continuous service as per the Executive Promotion Rules enforced on 18.7.1998 to prevent further delay in E-4 promotion which actually due on 1.4.2009 along with your batch of doctors who already promoted and
(iii) to make use of your specialized service as a Pathologist in Area Hospital Laboratory, RG I has been examined.
2. This is to inform you that in the DPC meeting held on 25.1.2005, you were considered along with other eligible Medical Officers for promotion as Senior Medical Officer (E-3) with effect from 1.4.2005 under Cadre Scheme and after careful examination of PARs for the period from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 and on detailed assessment of your performance, the DPC did not find you suitable for promotion as Senior Medical Officer (E-3).
24
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
3. However, as recommended by the DPC in its meeting held on 18.10.2005. You were promoted as Senior Medical Officer (E-3) notionally from 1.10.2005 and with monetary benefit from 7.2.2006 i.e. from the date you reported for duty after Study Leave, as per Rule 4.2 of Executives Promotion Rules.
4. Due to administrative reasons, the request to utilize your services as Pathologist cannot be agreed to."
43. From the contents of paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit {filed by the General Manager (Personnel)} and the communication dated 02.04.2010; it is inferred that the case of petitioner for promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2005 was considered by examining the Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs for 1999-2000 to 2003-2004) by the DPC and found him not suitable. In the subsequent DPC Meeting held on 18.10.2005, he was notionally promoted as Senior Medical Officer E3 Grade considering representations made by petitioner in May, 2009 and February, 2010 for promotion on par with his colleagues.
44. The grievance of the petitioner that he was put to loss of 6 months seniority of not being promoted with his batchmates to E3 Grade was well considered and found not suitable. It is trite law that seniority of a person is reckoned from the date he is promoted to the post. 25
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 Petitioner was promoted as Senior Medical Officer E3 Grade notionally from 01.10.2005 with monetary benefits from 07.02.2006. Seniority once fixed, continues, seniority of petitioner is fixed, from 01.10.2005, from the date promoted to E3 Grade.
45. Petitioner cannot agitate after this length of time to rectify the anomaly retrospectively. The inter se seniority fixed has attained finality, it cannot be revived. The other relevant aspect which cannot be ignored is that employees, who would be affected if seniority of petitioner is to be revived after this length of time as sought for in this writ petition, should be granted an opportunity of being heard. In their absence i.e., they not being made as party respondents, this Court cannot consider the grievance of petitioner on this ground also.
46. It is not the case of the petitioner that his representations were not considered. The representations made by him were examined in detail and was informed vide Ref.No.CRP/PER/C/025/716, dated 02.04.2010 (page No.116), that he was found unsuitable to be promoted from 26 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 01.04.2005. It was made clear in the communication dated 02.04.2010 that petitioner was promoted as Senior Medical Officer (E3) notionally from 01.10.2005 and with monetary benefit from 07.02.2006 i.e., from the date petitioner reported for duty after study leave as per Rule 4.2 of Executives Promotion Rules.
47. It is not forthcoming from the record, as to whether the petitioner has taken any steps to challenge the communication, dated 02.04.2010. For reasons supra, the relief sought for to consider petitioner's request to rectify the anomaly cannot be granted.
48. It is observed from the record that petitioner made a representation prior to Notification No.4 of 2012 to consider his case as a Pathologist (Specialist Doctor). In the walk-in-interviews conducted pursuant to Notification No.4 of 2012, petitioner was not selected and hence not appointed. One Dr.Narayana Reddy was appointed as Specialist Doctor in the branch of Pathology. It is not evident from the record, whether petitioner has challenged his non-selection.
27
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
49. A perusal of the Rules (at page No.259) relied on by petitioner counsel indicate that the said Rules pertain to Executive Entry Level in different disciplines. The reservation prescribed for internal candidates in recruitment to entry level posts should be adhered to the extent possible as per Rules. Petitioner seeks to consider his case retrospectively for the post of Specialists Doctor in the branch of Pathology. It is not an executive entry level post. For the posts notified in 2012, 2014 and 2016, the selection procedure adopted by the Committee is, on walk- in-interview basis. The numbers of vacancies in each branch were notified and the employment notification was advertised in the newspapers (as observed from the record). Minimum qualifications were prescribed for the posts. Notification No.4 of 2012 is for specialists doctors E3 Grade (one vacancy is notified for Pathology branch). Notification No.1 of 2014 is for E3 Grade (no vacancy is notified for Pathology branch). Notification No.1 of 2016 is for E4 and E3 Grades (no vacancy is notified for Pathology branch). In these employment notifications for Specialists Doctors in various branches, candidates with prescribed 28 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 qualifications were inducted. Petitioner appeared in 2012 and his candidature was not considered. Though appeared for the walk-in-interview was not selected. It is the wisdom of the Committee to select the best talent for appointment as Specialists Doctors.
50. It is trite to take note of the contents of counter affidavit filed for better appreciation of the facts and the same are as follows:
"3. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying this Hon'ble Court to declare the inaction of the Respondents 1 to 4 for not issuing the proceedings promoting the petitioner as pathologist/ specialist as an internal candidate from the cadre of General Duty Medical Officer and direct the respondents No 1 to 4 issue proceedings in pursuant to the note file order of the departmental promotion committee dt.30.12.2014 (R.1 to R.4) whereby the proposal for promotion of the petitioner as pathologist/ specialist is approved as per the company rules and to provide all the service benefits attach to the posts such as seniority in specialist cadre with effect from 16.05.2007 monetary benefits, fitment benefits, specialist/pathologist general allowance etc retrospectively.
4. In reply to averments in para-1 & 2, it is submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed as General Duty Officer/E-2 Grade on 15.11.1999 and Medical subsequently promoted to various levels. The details are as follows:
(a) Date of Promotion as Sr.MO/E3 Grade: 01.10.2005
(b) Date of Promotion as Dy. Medical Supdt. (GDMO):
01.04.2010/E-5 Grade 29 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
(c) Date of Promotion as Medical Supdt. (GDMO):
01.04.2014/E-6 Grade
5. In reply to averments in paras 3 to 7, it is submitted that the Petitioner has submitted a representation through Sri Diwakar Rao, MLA Mancherial Constituency for promotion as Specialist (Pathology) from his date of deputation to IRCS, Mancherial. It is submitted that Promotion Policy of Specialist (vide Circular No.CRP/ PER/C/025/1130, dated 19.05.2014) is as follows:
(a) to promote internal medical officers with MBBS and PG degree/diploma qualification( with Specialization) with 3 years post PG experience as Specialist in E4 Grade, and those with same qualification and less than 3 years post PG experience as Specialist in E3 Grade through interview by DPC against vacancies.
(b) In case there are GDMOs with PG Qualifications available with no vacancies exist, they will be accommodated /promoted as specialists limiting to 10% of the approved discipline strength of Specialty or minimum 1 post, but not exceeding the total strength of Specialist Doctors.
(c) To fill up available specialist vacancies 1st with Internal eligible GDMOs through interview by DPC and the remaining vacancies will be filled up through open advertisement/ Walk in interview by allowing internal candidates also.
In accordance with above new promotion policy, applications have been invited from the eligible internal Medical Officers/Sr. Medical Officers/General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) for the post of Specialist (Pathology) to fill up 1 vacancy (10% of approved discipline strength) out of total sanctioned strength Specialist vide Lr.No.CRP/MED/I/001/2005, dated 23.05.2015 In response to the above, no internal GDMO has submitted application for the post of Specialist (Pathology) including the Petitioner vide letter dated 25.09.2015. Hence, further action was not initiated on the same. It is also to submit that promotion orders will be issued only after completion Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings but not on the Note approved by the Competent Authority. Prior to the above new promotion policy, management invited applications from the external Specialist (Pathology) vide paper 30 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 advertisement dated 30.10.2012. In response to the above, the Petitioner has applied for the post, but he was not selected. Copies of selection proceedings are enclosed as material papers which may be read as part of this counter. Therefore from the aforesaid facts, the contention of the Petitioner that Respondents No.1 to 4 have not issued his promotion order based on approved Note dated 30.12.2014 is not tenable. Copies of circular 19.05.2014, letters dated 23.05.2015, and 25.09.2015 are enclosed as material papers which is may be read as part of this counter.
6. In reply to averments in paras 8 and 9, it is submitted that the Petitioner remained unauthorized absence from duty from 05.04.2003 while he was working at Area Hospital, Ramagundam. On sending a Telegram to his address, the Petitioner submitted an application dated 05.05.2003, addressed to C&MD, stating he joined in the M.D. (Pathology) on 31.12.2002 and requested for sanction of Study Leave. As per clause No.1 of circular dated 6-8-1999, the executive shall have a minimum period of 5 years service to get sanction of study leave( half pay study leave). As per clause No.12 of circular dated 6-8-1999, executive who have applied for sanction of study leave shall not leave the station to prosecute the course before sanction of study leave is communicated to them. Copy of circular dated 06.08.1999 is filed as material paper, which may be read as part of this counter. Though the Petitioner joined in PG course without prior permission of the competent authority and also having less than 5 yrs service as on date of submission of application for study leave, management was kind enough to grant study leave on loss of pay for a period of 3 years from 15.07.2003 to prosecute his PG Degree in Pathology (MD-Pathology) at Osmania University, Hyderabad. The Petitioner has reported back on 07.02.2006 vide Office Order No.RG1/GMO/P-2/82, dated 09.02.2006. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that management has put him under suffer at different stages is totally far from the truth and it is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict of the same.
7. In reply to paras 10 to 14, it is to submit that DPC meeting held on 25.01.2005, the Petitioner was considered along with other eligible Medical Officers for promotion as Senior Medical Officer (E3) with effect from 01.04.2005 under cadre scheme and after careful examination of PARs for the period from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 and on detailed assessment of Petitioner's performance, the DPC did not find him suitable for 31 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 promotion as Senior Medical Officer (E3). However on recommendation in the next DPC meeting held on 18.10.2005, the Petitioner was promoted as Senior Medical Officer (E3) notionally from 01.10.2005 and 1.10.2005 monetary benefit from 07.02.2006 i.e., from the date the Petitioner reported back for duty after Study Leave as per Rule No.4.2 of Executive's Promotion Rules. The Petitioner submitted representations on 22.05.2009 and 05.02.2010 for correction of his date of promotion at par with Dr.Adi Andhra Maddileti, Dr.Chenna Merry Kumari, Dr.Jatti Kishan Rao and Dr.O.Kaleshwar Rao as they were also availed study leave. His representations were examined in detail by the Management and informed him vide Lr.No.CRP/PER/C/025/716, dated 02.04.2010 stating that he was not suitable for promotion along with the above said others doctors on 01.04.2005. As such, the contention of the Petitioner that without any valid legal reasons, the Petitioner was put to loss of 6 months seniority by the management in compared to his batch mates is not tenable and it is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict of the same.
8. In reply to the averments in para-15, it is submitted that the Petitioner has not passed MD Pathology during his first attempt. He requested for further extension of study leave for a period of 2 months from 01.05.2006 to 30.06.2006, as he could not clear the examination in his first attempt. After availing study leave, the Petitioner has not submitted PG qualification immediately. As per rules in vogue, any executive has to submit valid academic/Technical qualifications to the management, the same will be updated in Employee Personal Record (EPR). However, mere acquiring the qualification does not give any vested right to claim promotion or any monetary benefit by the executives.
9. In reply to para-16, it is submitted that the Petitioner was posted to work as Sr. Medical Officer (GDMO) in the Department of Pathology to take care of complete Blood Bank and Pathology Department work at Area Hospital, Ramagundam vide letter dated 02.08.2007 (local adjustment). While the Petitioner was holding charge as In-charge Pathology Department, a HIV reactive test result of Swimming Coach was communicated to Chief Manager, Ramagundam-I Area without confirmation of the same. This issue created a lot of embarrassment to Chief General Manager, RG.I and Medical Department, both in the print and the electronic media, as subsequent tests results have revealed that the said patient was not reactive to HIV. It is further to submit that during his In- 32
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 chargeship at Area Hospital, Ramagundam, it was alleged that the Petitioner was doing private practice, by tying up with local laboratories. Thus, he was removed from the Inchargeship of the Pathology Department and was posted to work in Dispensary.
10. In reply to para-17, it is submitted that the Petitioner was deputed to work Indian Red Cross Society Blood Bank(IRCS), Mancherial at the request of District Collector, Adilabad/President, IRCS, Adilabad vide Lr. No.CRP/PER/C/13/2377, dated 22.10.2011 Since then, he is bringing political influence on management with a view to continue to work on deputation at IRCS, Mancherial. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner that management has deputed him to IRCS, Mancherial for its mutual interest is totally false and it is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
11. In reply to para-18, it is submitted that the Petitioner has applied for the post, but he was not selected. Subsequently, applications were invited from the eligible internal Medical Officers/Sr. Medical Officers/General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) for the post of Specialist (Pathology) vide Lr.No.CRP/MED/I/001/2005, dated 23.05.2015, however no internal GDMO has submitted application for the post of Specialist (Pathology) including the Petitioner for the reasons best known to him. As such, the contention of the Petitioner that he has applied for the post of Pathologist as internal/ Local/In-service candidate in Pathology discipline along with external/non-local candidates is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The other contentions in the said para are denied and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
12. In reply to paras 19 & 20, it is submitted that filling up of vacancies in Specialist Doctors is subject to sanction strength including in Pathology. As there were sufficient Pathologist on rolls in the Company, management has not given any advertisement for recruitment of Pathologist in the year 2014. Copy of paper publication is filed as material paper, which may be read as part of this counter. It is further submitted that due to acute shortage of Specialist Doctors in Respondent Company Hospitals such as General Physician, Pediatrician, General Surgeon, Ortho, etc, Specialist, the Management is forced to go for walk in interview of external candidates. It is also relevant to submit that appointment of Specialists in the case of internal candidates is treated as Promotion. In the case of 33 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 external candidate, it is treated as recruitment. For internal candidates, only SC/ST candidates will have reservation in promotions. Reservations under BCs, Women, local and non-local will applicable in the case of recruitment of Specialist. However, from 2016 onwards, Roster system is being followed in Walk in-interview for specialists in the case of external recruitment. Copies of Walk in interview notifications are filed as material, which may be read as part of this counter.
13. In reply to para No.21, it is submitted that the vacancies of Specialist (Pathology) are limited and the Petitioner cannot compare his specialization with other specialties. As there are sufficient Specialists (Pathology) on rolls (3 persons), the Management could fill the post of Specialist (Pathology) as and when vacancy arise in accordance guidelines issued vide circular dated 19.05.2014. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he shall be promoted as Specialist (Pathology) from the date of deputation to IRCS since he is working as Pathologist in IRCS, Mancherial is not tenable and as such, it is denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
14. In reply to paras 22 to 26, the facts stated therein are not known to this Respondent and as such, they are not traversed hereunder and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
15. It is reiterated that promotion orders will be issued only after completion of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings, but not on the Note approved by the Competent Authority. Regarding various representations submitted by the petitioner, it is submitted that the representations have been examined in detail and suitable replies have been sent accordingly.
In view of what has been stated above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
51. By Notification No.1 of 2014, walk-in-interview for Specialist Doctors for branches other than Pathology were notified. Petitioner's contention that his representation 34 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 made on 01.11.2012 (prior to Notification No.4 of 2012) must have been considered. It is contended that representations made by the candidates, who appeared for walk-in-interviews, but not appointed, pursuant to Notification No.1 of 2014, were considered and they were appointed as Dermatologists. The contention that his representation should have been considered in similar lines in 2012 does not hold water.
52. This Court is of the opinion that such a grievance cannot be countenanced. Nothing is forthcoming from the record, under what circumstances the two Specialist Doctors in the branch of Dermatology were appointed in 2014 on the basis of representations. In the absence of such details, an averment would be only self-serving in nature. Even otherwise, such a ground cannot be canvassed at this hour, petitioner having not availed remedies available under law. The contention advanced is totally misconceived and does not deserve acceptance.
53. It is observed from the record that on the basis of promotion policy for GDMOs (General Duty Medical 35 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 Officers) for promotion as Specialist Doctors dated 19.05.2014 (Circular at page No.110) (referred in paragraph No.5 of counter affidavit supra), applications were invited from eligible internal officers (MO's (Medical Officers), SMO's (Senior Medical Officers), GDMO's) for post of Specialist (Pathology) to fill up one vacancy (10% of approved discipline strength) on 23.05.2015 (page No.112). Page No.113 is a document, the contents of which are as follows:
"with reference to the above, we have not received any applications from internal GDMOs. (Reference No.2 is enclosed)"
54. It is observed that there is a handwritten endorsement at page No.113, which is as follows:
"Pl. connect to the file of Dr. Vishnu Murthy & put up. Dated 26.09.2015, DGM (P) EE"
55. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the Note (Page Nos.71 to 74, P23) of December, 2014, which forms the basis for the submissions that petitioner's case needs to be considered in view of the approved note (as termed by the counsel). It is observed that in the NOTE (at Page No.71) under the caption 'subject', it is observed that 36 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 a representation is made by the Member of Legislative Assembly, Mancherial, to release orders to the petitioner as Pathologist from the date of his deputation from SCCL to IRCS. The following is the extract of the NOTE.
"THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED (A Government Company) NOTE Ref:No.CRP/PER/CN/ Date: 12.2014 Sub: Representation of Sri Diwakar Rao Nadipelli, MLA, Mancherial Constituency to release orders to Dr.Vishnu Murthy as pathologist from the date of his deputation from SCCL to IRCS - Reg.
01. Kindly peruse the representation dt. 28.08.2014 of Sri Diwakar Rao Nadipelli, M.L.A. Mancherial Constituency, Adilabad District. Telangana State addressed to Hon'ble Dy.Chief Minister and representation dated 13.11.2014 addressed to C&MD requesting to issue orders and regularize Dr.D.Vishnu Murthy as Pathologist.
02. The representation submitted by Sri Diwakar Rao Nadipelii, M.L.A. has been endorsed by Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister as follows:
"C&MD Singareni/Telangana-Please examine & consider the request positively"
03. The representation also forwarded by Sri T.Rajaiah, Hon'ble Dy. Chief Minister & Health Minister, Medical & Health Department, Government of Telangana and was endorsed by Chief Minister's Office vide Lr.No. 184/CMP-SM/2014, dt. 05.12.2014 with an advise to update action taken in the website http://cmo.telangana.gov.in/tgpms.
04. Dr. D. Vishnu Murthy was appointed in SCCL as Medical Officer on 15.11.1999. He was deputed by SCCL to Indian Red Cross Society in APVVP Government Hospital, Mancherial from 08.11.2011 on the request of District Collector, Adilabad and his salary is being paid by the Company.
37
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
05. He has been on deputation to IRCS from 08.11.2011 to 07.05.2014 vide office order No. CRP/PER/C/13/2377, dt. 22.10.2011 and the period of deputation has been extended from 08.05.2014 to 07.08 2014 vide office order CRP/PER/C/26/1429, dt. 11.06.2014.
06. The District Collector, Adilabad was informed that there is acute shortage of Medical Officers in SCCL and was requested to submit a proposal to the Government to absorb Dr.D.Vishnu Murthy on permanent basis in the Government to enable SCCL to appoint another Medical Officer in his place. However, his deputation was further extended for periods of 2 years from 08.08.2014 to 07.08.2016 vide office order No. CRP/PER/C/26/2476, dt. 27.9.2014, considering the representation made by Sri Diwakar Rao, Nadipelli Hon'ble MLA, Mancherial.
07. It is to submit that Dr.D. Vishnu Murthy was promoted to E-6 Grade with effect from 01.04.2014 vide Office order CRP/PER/C/025/2862, dt. 18.10.2014 (Copy placed on file),
08. It is pertinent to mention that Dr.D.Vishnu Murthy was sanctioned study leave for the purpose of pursuing MD(Pathology) Course, by Company from 15.7.2003 to 02.02.2006 and he has completed the MD Pathology course.
09. The qualification required for the post of Specialist (Pathology) is as follows "PG degree in Pathology and the qualification must be recognized by the Medical council of India."
10. It is to submit that his request to make use of his specialized services as a Pathologist in Area Hospital, RG-1 was examined and was informed vide letter No. CRP/PER/C/025/716, dt. 02.04.2010 that his request can not be agreed to due to administrative reasons (Copy enclosed).
11. It is to submit that Dr.D.Vishnu Murthy applied for the post of specialist (Pathology) during the walk-in- interviews for the post of specialist (Pathology) on 9.11.2012 but he was not selected.
12. It is to submit that the promotion policy of General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) as specialist on acquiring PG Degree/PG Diploma qualification with specialization was approved by the Board and the career growth for 38 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 GDMOS was circulated vide circular No. CRP/PER/C/025/1130, dt. 19.5.2014 which is reproduced below:
1. to promote internal Medical Officers with MBBS and PG Degree/Diploma qualification(with specialization) with three years post PG experience as Specialist in E4 grade and those with same qualification and less than 3 years post PG experience as specialist in E3 grade through interview by DPC against vacancies.
2. in case there are GDMOs with PG qualification available and no vacancies exist, they will be accommodated/promoted as Specialists limiting to 10% of the approved discipline strength of specialty or minimum 1 post, but not exceeding the total approved strength of Specialist Doctors.
3. to fill up available specialist vacancies first with internal eligible GDMOS through interview by DPC and the remaining vacancies will be filled up through open advertisement/walk-in-Interview by allowing internal candidates also.
4. to earmark specialty-wise roster points in accordance with GO issued by Govt. of AP on Rule of reservation in internal promotion of GDMOs and also at the time of publication of employment notification for Specialists from open market as is being done in the case of GDMOS.
5. to allow 3% of basic pay as fitment benefit in all internal promotions of GDMOS as Specialists.
6. to allow fitment benefit from 01.01.1997 to all internal GDMOS appointed/promoted as Specialists (including those Specialists appointed from GDMO cadre and retired/resigned) with monetary benefit prospectively from the date of approval accorded by the Board i.e. 19.4.2014.
7. There will not be any increase in the total manpower of medical discipline executives (Specialist & Non-Specialist Doctors) approved by the Board in the past.
13. The above policy will be effective from the date of approval accorded by the Board ie. 19.04.2014 and the DPC will consider the eligible candidates alongwith regular DPCs for the respective panel year.
39
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
14. In case Dr.D. Vishnu Murthy is promoted as Pathologist as Specialist, he will be eligible for fitment benefit of 3% of Basic Pay.
15. Presently, there are 3 Pathologists on the rolls of the Company as shown below and in case no vacancies exist, the GDMOs with Specialization are to be accommodated/ promoted as Specialist limiting to 10% of the approved discipline strength or minimum 1 post, but not exceeding the total approved strength of Specialist Doctors.
Sl. E.Code Name & Qualification Place of
No. Designation Work
1. 0044371 Dr. G. Sunila MBBS, MD Main
MD. Supd (Splst) (Pathology) Hospital
Corporate
2. 0045115 Dr. P. Prasanna Kumar, MBBS, MD Area
Med.Supdt (SPLST) (Pathology) Hospital,
RG-1
3. 0052691 Dr. K. Narayana Reddy MBBS, MD Area
Med.Supdt (SPLST) (Pathology) Hospital
RKP, MMR
56. The contents of document at page No.74 are as follows:
"As per policy, Sri Vishnu Murthy will be promoted to Specialist Cadre as per Company Rules (Flag F) and brought out at para 12. May be approved. For necessary action."
57. The said NOTE is signed (initialed) on 30.12.2014, 11.01.2015, 13.01.2015 and signed by General Manager, (P)/EE&RC, Chairman & MD.
58. On the basis of the contents of the NOTE, it is submitted that petitioner was not issued orders in spite of the NOTE.
40
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
59. It is settled proposition of law that promotion orders will be issued only upon the completion of Departmental Promotion Committee Proceedings and on the recommendations of DPC, but not on the basis of a NOTE.
60. Filling up vacancies is subject to available vacancies and their sanction, when there are sufficient pathologists on the rolls of Company, no notifications can be issued. Vacancies are notified or advertised in branches where there is shortage of Specialist Doctors. As there were sufficient number of Pathologists, the respondent Company was right in not issuing notifications for the posts of Specialist Doctors in the branch of Pathology.
61. When the respondent Company has a policy that appointment of specialist's doctors in case of internal candidates is treated as 'promotion' and in case of external candidates is treated as 'recruitment', the same has to be adhered to and it has been adhered by the respondent organization. There is a clear distinction made out in matters of appointment when Specialist Doctors are being recruited from among the internal candidates and external 41 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 candidates. As such, the contention that distinction between recruitment and promotion is not considered, is not a valid contention.
62. The policy of reservations of the Company, as observed from the counter affidavit, is that SC/ST internal candidates have reservations and reservation for BC's, Women, Local and non-local is applicable in case of recruitment. The averment that, from 2016 roster system is being followed in walk-in-interviews for specialists in case of external recruitment is not rebutted.
63. Petitioner's grievance that his case in the branch of pathology has not been considered on par with other colleagues, who were considered, in other branches, is not a valid contention. Petitioner cannot compare his branch of specialization with other branches. As observed supra, only when a vacancy arises in a specialized branch that vacancy would be filled up in accordance with guidelines. This Court cannot find fault with such procedure. The averment in the counter affidavit that there are sufficient pathologists in the Company i.e., three in 42 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 number, is not denied. The contention of petitioner that he has to be promoted from the date of his deputation at IRCS is invalid and not tenable and cannot be considered. It is also evident from the record that pursuant to Notification No.4 of 2012, in which a specialist doctor post in the branch of pathology was notified, petitioner appeared and was not selected.
64. On the aspect of promotion to be issued on the NOTE of DPC, it is trite law that promotions will be issued only after completion of DPC proceedings and not on the basis of a NOTE approved. It is pertinent to note that DPC is a recommendatory body and the recommendations made are subject to approval. For valid reasons, sometimes the recommendations made by the DPC may be disagreed.
65. Petitioner contended that the respondent Company has adopted the policy of CIL Career Growth Plan and as per the policy, petitioner is eligible for being promoted from E6 grade to E7 Grade. Petitioner was promoted to E6 Grade w.e.f. 01.04.2014 vide order dated 18.10.2014. 43
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
66. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting of the respondent Company held on 22.02.2013 (Page No.297) to adopt the CIL Growth Plan in SCCL. The relevant portion of the proceedings of the GM Personnel, dated 06.03.2013, are as follows:
"5:21.1. The Board considered the note placed before it.
5.21.2. Director (PA&W) stated that the proposal is mutatis mutandis as per the circulars of CIL. He stated that a court case is pending in respect of Item No.4 i.e., career growth plan of FMMC holders and whatever is operationalised in CIL, the same will be implemented in SCCL.
5:21.3. After deliberation the Board accorded approval.
a) for modification of Executives Promotion/Recruitment Rules for implementing Career Growth Plan for executives as brought out in the note to the extent approved and implemented in CIL and
b) authorizing C&MD to approve the subsequent amendments if any, made in CIL to Executives Promotion/Recruitment Rules etc., from time to time."
"Item No: 511:5:21 (at page No.298) Sub: CIL Career Growth Plan-To adopt in SCCL-Reg.
The following are the proposal to adopt in SCCL as regards the Career Growth Plan pertaining to Executive Cadre Employees as under:"
S.No. Existing in SCCL Proposed
The Board in its meeting held 15.5.1997 (i) In line with
1 accorded approval for implementation of O.M.No.CIL/C6A
Cluster promotions, as under: (vi)/CCC/1490, dt.
13.7.2010, it is proposed
44
JAK, J
W.P.No.9914 of 2017
Cluster Promotions: as under:
Promotions under cluster concept are effected a) As per the extract of
on completion of stipulated period of service minute No 496:5:15 of
in lower grade(s) as mentioned below by Board of Directors
reviewing on 1st October & 1st April every meeting held on
year. 29.3.2010, the Cluster
Concept Promotions are
i) E2 to new E3 5 years service in E2 grade proposed to abolish from
ii) E5 to E6-5 years service will be reckoned 01.10.2012 and Inter-
by considering the aggregate service in E4 Cluster Promotions are
grade (pre-revised) and E5 grade proposed to abolish from
01.10.2014.
Inter Cluster promotions:
Promotions under Inter Cluster b) The promotion from
Promotions are effected on completion of E2 10 E3 grade will be
stipulated period of service in lower grade(s) time bound on
as mentioned below by reviewing on 1st completion of 3 years
October every year. stipulated period as on
1st October without
i) E1 to E2-7 years service in E1 grade. consideration of
vacancies. They will be
ii) E4 to E5-7 years service will be reckoned promoted based on DPC
by considering the aggregate service in E3 recommendations.
grade (pre-revised) and E4 grade (revised).
c) The promotion from E3
iii) E3 to E4-7 years service in new E3 grade. to E4, E4 to E5, E5 to E6, E6 to E7, E7 to E8 As per Rule 3.4 of SCCL Promotion Rules and E8 to E9 grade (from approved by the Board on 18.7.1988 and one grade to other grade) subsequently amended upto would depend on availability of vacancies.
d) The promotions from C1 upto CO grade shall be based on the principle of seniority-cum-merit through DPC.
e) The promotions from
E6 upto E9 shall be
positive selection by
Departmental Promotion
Committee on the
Principle of Merit-cum-
Seniority.
f) For E6 to E7 and E7 to
E9, the selection will be
based on interview and
other merit consideration
& Performance.
67. Though there are other proposed growth plan clauses adopted by SCCL, the relevant clause relied upon by the 45 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 counsel is clause (f) in column No.3 at Serial No.1 (Page No.298). On the basis of this clause, it is submitted that the petitioner's case can be considered as petitioner is meritorious and his services are performance oriented.
68. Reliance is also placed on the extract of Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting held on 19.04.2014 by the GM (P)/EE&RC, dated 05.05.2014. Attention was invited to the following portions.
"Sub: Career Growth of General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) Promotion Policy for GDMOs for promotion as Specialists on acquiring PG Degree/ PG Diploma qualification with specialization.
5.12.1 The Board considered the note placed before it Director (PA&W) informed that the attrition rate among Specialist Doctors is on high side and therefore the Management is finding it difficult to provide Specialist treatment in the Company hospitals. He also informed that non-Specialist Doctors (General Duty Medical Officers) are given Study leave for pursuing specialization courses. However due to absence of well laid policy for promotion of non- Specialists on acquiring Specialist qualifications, there is discontentment among non-Specialist Doctors, who are more likely to stick to the organization because of their acclimatisation with the Company's work force and coal field environment compared to direct recruits. He stated that there is an immediate necessity for the aforesaid policy to continue to have Specialist Doctors 5:12.2 After deliberation the Board i. accorded approval for the following Promotion Policy for General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) as Specialists on acquiring PG Degree/ PG Diploma qualification with specialization, 46 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
a) To Promote internal Medical Officers with MBBS and PG Degree Diploma qualification with 3 years post PG experience as Specialist in E4 grade and those with same qualification and less than 3 years post PG experience as Specialist in E3 grade through interview by DPC against vacancies.
b) In case there are GDMOs with PG qualification available and no vacancies exist, they will be accommodated/promoted as Specialists limiting to 10% of the approved discipline strength of specialty or minimum 1 post but not exceeding the total approved strength of Specialist Doctors"
69. The contentions raised by the counsel cannot be considered in the light of the fact that the sanctioned strength of Specialist Doctors in the branch of Pathology being three, the petitioner's contention that he be considered as a Pathologist can only arise when a vacancy arises.
70. It is settled proposition of law that even the selectees do not have any legal right of appointment. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in State of Assam & Ors. vs. Arabinda Rabha & Ors (Civil Appeal No.2350 of 2025) the Apex Court held as follows:
"27. One finds an extensive discussion on the tests required to be satisfied to invalidate a decision of a subsequent Government, nullifying a previous Government decision, in Jitendra Kumar v. State of 47 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 Haryana 1 The case involved suspension of the process of selection by the Government because, inter alia, the cadre strength was found to be unjustly inflated by the previous Government. The appellants before this Court indisputably were the selected candidates and the principal question arising for decision, in the given facts and circumstances, was whether they had a legal right to be appointed. This Court held, "the legal principle obtaining herein is not in dispute that the selectees do not have any legal right of appointment subject, inter alia, to bona fide action on the part of the State". Noticing the decisions in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra), Shankarsan Dash (supra) as well as other decisions on the point, this Court further held that whereas the selectee as such has no legal right, the superior court in exercise of its judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in the absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on the part of the authority, and each case has to be considered on its own merit. Examining the point as to whether the impugned action of the respondent-State lacked bona fide, this Court answered in the negative. Finally, this is what was observed:
"55. We are not oblivious of the constitutional scheme that the decisions taken by one Government in public interest itself cannot be a ground for review thereof at the hands of the successor Government. It is not the Government which is in the seat of the power, matters in this behalf, but what matters is the public interest.
56. Mr Dwivedi has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Company [(2006) 4 SCC 683] wherein it was held: (SCC pp. 708-09, para 66) '66. Taking an overall view of the matter, it appears that there could hardly be a dispute that the Project is a mega project which is in the larger public interest of the State of Karnataka and merely because there was a change in the Government, there was no necessity for reviewing all decisions taken by the previous Government, which is what appears to have happened. That such an action cannot be taken every time there is a change of Government has been clearly laid down in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal [(2004) 4 SCC 714] and in 1 (2008) 2 SCC 161 48 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 State of Haryana v. State of Punjab [(2002) 2 SCC 507] where this Court observed thus:
'[I]n the matter of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous Government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not involve any political philosophy, the succeeding Government must be held duty-bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same.'
57. There cannot be any doubt in regard to the aforementioned proposition of law but the question herein is whether public interest would be subserved by asking the State to proceed to make appointments. Whereas, on the one hand, an action on the part of the State to interfere with the good work done by the previous Government solely on the basis of change in the regime must be deprecated, there cannot however be any doubt whatsoever that the successor Government cannot blink over the illegalities committed by the previous Government. If illegalities have been committed, the same should be rectified. When there exists a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the State, having regard to the overall situation including the post-haste manner in which actions had been taken, to cause an inquiry to be made and suspend the process of making appointments till the result of such inquiry is obtained, such a decision on its part per se cannot be said to be an act of arbitrariness or unreasonableness."
71. It is pertinent to take note of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner bearing W.P.No.9941 of 2019 with the following prayer:
"...to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that a Action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as Specialist while promoting juniors to the petitioners as illegal arbitrary and discriminatory violating article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India b declare that petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Specialist in pursuance of his interview on medical examination held on 4.3.2019 and 5.3.2019 and pass.."49
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
72. A learned Single Judge by order dated 06.12.2021 disposed the writ petition and directed as follows:
"When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for petitioner had contended that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking permission to the post of Specialist and his case was considered for promotion in the interviews, which were held on 04.03.2019 and 05.03.2019. He further pointed out that the respondents have filed counter affidavit and at page No.79, which is annexed to the counter affidavit, the proceedings dated 05.03.2019 are filed, wherein the respondents have stated that the petitioner was found suitable for promotion to the post of Senior Specialist (Pathology)/E-4 Cadre in the pay scale of Rs.70,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- with immediate effect. However, the said order was not implemented on the ground that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.9914 of 2017, wherein the petitioner was seeking retrospective promotion with effect from 2004. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the respondents having found that the petitioner is eligible for promotion, but denying promotion in view of pendency of W.P.No.9914 of 2017 cannot be a ground. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner, which was granted vide proceedings dated 05.03.2019.
In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the considered view that when the respondents have cleared the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Specialist (Pathology)/E-4 Cadre vide proceedings dated 05.03.2019, in all fairness, the respondents must give effect to the said proceedings without prejudice to the pendency of W.P.No.9914 of 2017 filed by the petitioner seeking retrospective promotion. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner, as was granted to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 05.03.2019."50
JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017
73. It is evident from the order of the learned Single Judge that petitioner was found eligible to be promoted to the post of Senior Specialist (Pathology) E4 Cadre vide proceedings dated 05.03.2019. It is held by the learned Single Judge that petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Senior Specialist with effect from the date of proceedings issued. If petitioner has not been promoted to E4 cadre from 05.03.2019 due to the pendency of the proceedings in W.P.No.9914 of 2017, he be promoted forthwith.
74. The contention of learned counsel that the Growth Plan of CIL adopted by the SCCL speaks of a ratio of 2:1:1 to be adopted for promotion from E4 to E5 Grades and the same has not been followed. It is trite to extract the Note ii, on which reliance is placed (Page No.310). The Note is as follows:
"ii. Promotion from E-4 to E-5 grade and above grades will be regulated in the ratio of 2:1:1 i.e., 2 Specialist Cadre, 1 General Cadre, who has acquired specialist PG qualification subsequently and 1 non-specialist with Hospital Administration."
75. If the promotions from E4 to E5 Grade are not regulated as per the ratio, petitioner is always at liberty to 51 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 raise the said aspect and such other aspects by way of a representation to consider his case. On such representation being made, the authorities concerned shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the policy adopted and guidelines, if any.
76. With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI Date:26.09.2025 KRR