WRIT PETITION N0 v. SOUTH EASTERN GOALFIELDS LTD
Case at a glance
Held
The Court held that the mid‑process change in eligibility criteria was impermissible and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners under the original criteria.
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
Petitioners, employees of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., challenged the selection process for a post of Junior Data Entry Operator (Trainee) in the T&S Group ‘E’. They alleged that the eligibility criteria were altered midway, disqualifying them.
Issues
- Whether the change in eligibility criteria during the selection process was lawful.
- Whether the petitioners’ appointments could be quashed on that basis.
Holding
The Court held that the mid‑process change in eligibility criteria was impermissible and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners under the original criteria.
Reasoning
The Court applied established principles of law, noting that the change in criteria was made after the selection process had begun and that only six clerical staff were found eligible thereafter. This alteration was deemed impermissible.
Practical significance
The decision underscores that employers cannot retroactively change eligibility criteria during a selection process, and that affected employees must be considered under the original criteria.
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WritPetition No. 4725of2004 Allauddin Siddiqui & Others Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Others \ Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on the A3 day of October, 2009 SA'- Satish K. Agniliotri Judge 4-; v4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4725 of2004 PETITIONERS Allauddin Siddiqui & Others Versus RESPONDENTS South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Others (Writ petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Agnihotri, J Present: Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri P.S.Koshy, counsel forthe respondents. JUDG M E NT (Passed on this -?3> dav of October, 2009)
By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : result records concerning the selection of The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to from the respondents. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent 1 by writ of mandamus to declare departmental promotion examination having been conducted the Junior Data Entry Operator (Trainee), Grade 'E'. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent 1 to actaccording to the intention of the Annexure - P/4 and by further the decision of -the Functional holding that Directors relating to the subject matter, as has been arrived at their 228 meet and having been quoted by the Dy CPM respondent 3 in his letter dated 13,11.2004 Annexure - P/12 is inoperative in the circumstances of the case. the respondent And, consequently, 1 may kindly further be directed to promote/select the in case they stand selected in petitioners, compliance of their own policy Annexure - P/4.
Th.e Hon'bl.e Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any further action in compliance of the circular dated 25.1.2007 Annexure - P/14 till declaring the issued by result of the earlier advertisement drcularAnnexure- P/1, P/2 & P/3. ' "(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) > A(6^-^ (6) Any other considers proper, may kindly be awarded, fitness of justice. " relief(s) which the Hon'bie Court the things and in the interestof The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the respondent authorities_ had invited applications from the suitable and eligible candidates for selection to the postof Data Entry Operator. Pursuant to the above, the petitioners along with other candidates submitted their applications, and thereafter appeared in the written examination. The petitioners were declared successful in the written examination. Thereafter, the typing test was conducted.
The petitioners could not clear the typing test, therefore, were again afforded an opportunity to appear in the typing test, but the result of the petitioners has not been declared. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent authorities, but no reply has been received by them. Therefore, the petitioners J- sent a legal notice for demand of justice. After receipt of the notice, the respondent authorities vide letter dated 13-11-2004 (Annexure - P/12) informed the petitionere that the Functional Directors decided that the empanelled list of candidates selected for the post of Data Entry Operators be cancelled forthwith and in future inductionof Data Entry Operator shall be done dn selection basis form amongst clerical staff. However, if in the empanelled h'st, some clerical staff is already selected, the same could be considered by the Functional Directors.
Thus, petition. \> \' ^,'" .^?s^aE^. ^. life>. " 'i& :^ • ^ ^r v^ Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the respondent-authorities have changed the selection criteria after completion of the selection process and decided on 19-4-2004 in 228' meeting of the Functional Directors to select the persons only amongst the clerical staff and, as such, the entire select list wascancelled and six persons from the clerical staffwere declared as selected by order dated 27-1-2005 (Annexure - P/13). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that during pendency of this petition, the respondents issued acircular dated 25-1-2007 (Annexure - P/14) inviting applications again for seleetion to the post of Jr. Data Entry 'E' having the sameeligibility Operator (Trainee) in T & S Gr. criterja, as stated in the earlier notification (Annexure - P/4).
Thus, the order dated 13-11-2004 (Annexure - P/12) issued on the basis of 228 meeting of Functional Directors held on 19-4-2004 to provide selection for the post of Data Entry Operator from amongst clerical staffalone is unreasonable, unconstitutional and bad in law. Learned counsel would next -te^' submit that the respondents have altered the criteria for selection to the post of Data Entry Operator, which cannot be done subsequently during the selection process. On the other hand, Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit the selection list of candidates for appointment on the post of Jr. Data Entry Operator (Trainee) was cancelled by the Functional Directors in their meeting held on 19-4-2004. Since the selection list was not \v 4 ^ published, the petitioners have not acquired an'y right, which is enforceable by a Court of law for appointment on the post of Jr.
Data Entry Operator (Trainee). Shri Koshy would further submit that the persons selected from the selection list have not been arrayed as party-respondents in this writ petition. The Functional Directors are fully competent to cancel the selection process before issuance ofthe appointment order. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.
It is evident that the petitioners along with others applied for selection to the post of Jr. Data Entry Operator (Trainee) in (T&S) Gr. 'E', wherein the eligibility criteria was provided i.e. "any permanent employee having matriculate or equivalent certificate with 3 yearsservice in the Company. " The petitjonersapplied and thereafter they successfully qualified in the written test and passed the typing test also after some time. The Functional Directors in their 228 meeting held on 19-4-2004 decided to cancel fhe select list. Accordinlgy, by letter dated 13-11-2004 (Annexure - P/12), the Area Personnel Managers of all areasof SECL were directed as under: "No. SECL/BSP/ADMNProm/Jr.DEO(T)/04/1739 Dt. 13. 11.2004 To AreaPersonnel Managers, AIIAreas of SECL Sub: SelQction of Data Entry Operators. DearSir, \Ne are receiving regular representations from different Areas, employees as well as from Vnions regarding selection to the post of Data Entry Operator. The matter has been placed Sefore 228"' Meetof FDsheld on 1S/lh April,2004 andthe decision of FDs /s reproduced below: >- ^' \ Functional Directors decided that the empanelled list of candidatesselected for the post of Data Entry Operators be cancelled forthwith and in future induction of Data Entry Operators shall be done on selection basis form amongst clericgl staff. However, in the empanelled list, some clerical staff is already selected, the same could be considered by the FDs. 'rf This is for your kind information with a request-to inform the persons concernedaccordingly. Yours faithfully Sd/- Dy. CPM Copy to
1. GM (P&A), SECL.BSP. 2. GM(System), SECL, BSP. 3. Dy. CPM(IR), SECL, BSP."
On the basis of letter dated 13-11-2004, six persons from the clerical staffwere selected tothe post ofJr. Data Entry Operator (Trainee)in (T&S) Gr. 'E' by order dated 27-1-2005 (Annexure - P/13). The contention of the petitionerthat once the selection process has been initiated on the basis ofeligibility criteria as prescribed in Annexure - P/4, the same cannot be challenged during the selection process.
It is evident from the fact that six persons from clerical staff were ^-.-- selected from the same selection process wherein the petitioners also participated on the basis of eligibility criteria as afore-stated. The said eligibility criteria was again restored in thesubsequent selection process vide Annexure - P/14 dated 25-1-2007. It is true that the Government can change the selection criteria any time, but the same cannot be done during the selection process as on the basis.ofeligibility criteria i.e. any permanent employee having matriculate or equivalent certificate with 3 years service in the Company, the petitioners applied for the selection to the post tf^ \ of Jr. Data Entry Operator (Trainee), in T&S Gr. 'E'. The criteria was changed during selection and from the said select list only six persons coming from clericalstaffwereappointed. Thus, the selection process is vitiated.
I have gone through the decisions cited by learned counsel appearing forthe respective parties, however,! am referring only those decisions, which are relevant tothe controversy involved in the facts of the case.
The Supreme Court in P. Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Others observed as under : -" It "11. is now well settled that ordinarily ruleswhich were prevailing at the time, when the vacanciesarose would be adhered to. The qualification must be fixed at that time. The eligibilitycriteria as also the procedures as were prevailing on the dateof vacancy should ordinarily be followed. "
The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others observed that "it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process ofselection hascommenced. "
In K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others , the Supreme Court observed that "c/iangmgr the rules of the game after the game was played is not permissible. " (Also see P.K. Ramachandra lyer vs. Union of India , Umesh Chandra 1 (2007)9 SCC 497 2 (2001)103cc 51 3 (2008)3 SCC 512 4(1984) 2 SCC 141 ^ Shukla vs. Union of India and Durgacharan Misra vs. State of Orissa ).
In Madan Mohan Sharma and Another vs. State of Rajasthan "once the the Supreme Court observed that and Others, actvertisement had been issued on the basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that the selection process should continue on the basis of the criteria which were laid down and it cannot beon the basis ofthe criteria which hasbeen made subsequently. "
tn Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "27. a Master's degree-holder The Selection Comtnittee during the stage of selection, which ismidway could not have changed the essential qualificationlaid down in the advertisement andat that stage Industrial Chemistry would be better suited for manning the said postwithouttherebeing any specific advertisement regard. in that The very fact the University is now manning the said post by having a person from the discipline of Pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion thatthe said post at that stage when itwas advertisedwas meant to be filled up by a person belonging to Pure Chemistry stream. " !Ji
The decision of Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and Others vs. Kali Dass Batish and Another, cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case the eligibility and qualification has been changed in the midway of the selection process, which is not permissible in law. Even
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court held that the mid‑process change in eligibility criteria was impermissible and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners under the original criteria.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the change in eligibility criteria during the selection process was lawful.
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 23 Oct 2009. The bench was SATISH K AGNILIOTRI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.