Managing Director, Central Coalfields v. Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1018 of 2021 Rakesh Kumar Dubey ... Petitioner 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Versus Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 2. The General Manager (Recruitment), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
been submitted that the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4408 of 2010 permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination and the petitioner was also successful, but his result has been withheld on account of the fact that the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit of 30 years when the advertisement was issued in 2010. Learned counsel submits that there is no rationale behind non-relaxation of age granted to the candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2006. Mr. Khalida Hayat Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL has submitted that the entire selection process of Junior Overman has been completed and the persons selected have also joined. It has further been submitted that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4408 of 2010, the representation of the petitioner has been considered and duly disposed of and in fact the petitioner appears to have crossed the age of 30 when the advertisement of 2008 was issued. 3. The primary grievance of the petitioner is of non-relaxation of age when he had applied for the post of Junior Overman, in the respondent company pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2010. It has been stated in this writ application that when he had applied in the year 2006 to the post of Junior Overman, the petitioner was aged 29 years which would mean that in the year 2008 when the subsequent advertisement was issued, the petitioner had already crossed the age limit. However, in the advertisement of the 2010 the petitioner has been given no relaxation although the petitioner pursuant to an interim order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4408 of 2010 had participated in the examination but there does not appear to be any ground which would compel this Court to direct to direct the respondents to relax the age limit as fixed in the advertisement of 2010. The fixation of the age limit and the non-relaxation of the age limit so far as the candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement of the 2006 is a policy decision of the respondent company and since as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent the entire process has already been completed and the persons who have been declared successful have already been appointed, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned office order dated 11.11.2020 as also with that part of the advertisement issued in March, 2010 by which the upper age limit of aspirants for the post of Junior Overman has been fixed as 30 years and consequently this writ application is dismissed. MK (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)
Arguments
--- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the CCL Order No. 08 --- : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate : Mr. Khalida Hayat Rashmi, Advocate --- Dated 10th April, 2023 The defects, as pointed out by the office are ignored. Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the office order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4408 of 2010 has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing that part of the advertisement issued in March, 2010 by which the upper age limit for aspirants for the post of Junior Overman has been fixed as 30 years, which has deprived the petitioner to apply for the said post in spite of the fact that on earlier two occasions, the respondents had failed to complete the selection process. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Overman in the light of the list dated 4.5.2011. The factual aspects of the case reveal that on 15.10.2006 an advertisement was issued by the respondents inviting applications for the post of Junior Overman in which the upper age limit for the general category candidates was fixed at 30 years. Since the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite criteria and was aged about 29 years he had applied for the same. However, the 2006 advertisement was not acted upon and 18 vacancies to be filled in the year 2006 to the post of Junior Overman were carried forward and on 12.03.2008, the respondents had issued another advertisement inviting applications for 103 posts of Junior Overman. However, the process with respect to selection of Junior Overman pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.03.2008 was kept in abeyance and subsequently in February/ March 2010 another advertisement was issued by the respondents for filling up the posts of Junior Overman. Since 2. no age relaxation was given to the candidates who had applier earlier, the petitioner had approached the authorities, wherein he was informed that the earlier advertisements were cancelled and the petitioner’s candidature could not considered. Faced with the aforesaid scenario, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4408 of 2010 for quashing that part of the advertisement issued in March 2010 by which the upper age limit for the aspirants to the post of Junior Overman was fixed as 30 years and vide order dated 23.12.2010, the respondent authority was directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination for selection to the post of Junior Overman scheduled to be held on 02.01.2011. The petitioner accordingly participated and his name was included in the list of successful candidates and he was also called for the interview. However, since the result of the petitioner was withheld he was constrained to prefer I.A. No. 4600 of 2020 in W.P.(S) No. 4408 of 2010 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2020 directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the respondent No. 2 who was to decide the claim of the petitioner within three months. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4408 of 2010, the representation was submitted by the petitioner which however was rejected vide memo dated 11.11.2020 which is the order impugned to the present writ application. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not given any reasons as to why the 2006 advertisement was cancelled and in fact the petitioner has been deprived on account of crossing the age of 30 years due to the cancellation of 2006 advertisement. It has further