Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Prasad & Ors. vs Coal India Ltd. & Ors. on 19 June, 2013
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 633 of 2005
Surendra Prasad & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Coal India Limited and Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioners :Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents :Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
16/19.6.2013Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the petitioners raised in the present writ application is to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee) from the dates on which similarly situated persons who were junior to them, have been promoted with all consequential benefits.
3. On the last occasion, after hearing the rival parties, a detailed order was recorded, reflecting the rival stand of the petitioners as well as respondents, relevant extracts of which is quoted hereunder:
"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 2. 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."
4. After the last order, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 19th March, 2013. The respondents have given a breakup of the marks secured by the present petitioners at para 7. The respondents have also stated that the petitioners belong to the general category and are departmental candidates. The last person selected in the general category have secured 132 marks. The highest marks, which has been secured by the petitioner no. 5, is 130 marks amongst all the petitioners. The comparative chart has been annexed as AnnexureA to the supplementary counter affidavit. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the petitioners.
5. It is however, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the promotion exercise to be undertaken on the basis of participation in the written test as per Annexure2. The respondents however, have taken interview of the candidates including the petitioners and added the marks of the interview in the final result, which caused anomaly in the recruitment process and affects the recruitment process.
6. Counsel for the respondents however, submits that the said stand is untenable as the candidate once having participated in the process of the recruitment, had appeared in the written test and also faced interview, they could not be allowed to challenge the same after they remained unsuccessful. The process has been uniformly applied for all such candidates.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as well as other relevant materials available on record. From the facts which have been reflected herein above, this Court had asked the respondents to file categorical reply as to whether petitioners had secured the qualifying marks for being promoted to the post of Welfare 3. Officer (Trainee). The supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents however clarifies the issue. The petitioners, who are the departmental candidates and belong to the general category, have not been able to secure 132 marks, on which the last person was selected and has been promoted.
8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also misconceived in view of the fact that the petitioners have consciously participated in the recruitment exercise including the written test and interview, therefore, they cannot assail the same after having been declared unsuccessful in the said exercise. The aforesaid issue has been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the several judgments such as in the case of Dhananjay Malik and Ors Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171, in the case of K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and Ors. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 and in the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors. Reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150.
9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere in the impugned orders and no case has been made out for directing the respondent to give promotion to these petitioners to the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee).
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. ) Amitesh/