(R) In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of v. 1. Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 1. The Director
Case Details
1 C.W.J.C. No. 2830 of 1998 (R) In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ---------- 1.Santosh Kumar 2.Subhash Kumar Singh 3.Ghanshyam Mahto 4.Anand Kumar Tiwary ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 1. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 3. The Chief General Manager (Personnel & Administration) Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 4. The Personnel Manager (Recruitment), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 5. The Dy. Personnel Manager (Recruitment), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi ... ... Respondents. --------- For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate : Ms. Banani Verma, Advocate --------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ---------- By Court: The petitioners have approached this Court challenging order dated 18.09.1998 passed by the respondents No. 3 whereby the claim of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Lab/Pathological Technician (Trainee) in the consolidated pay of Rs. 2,000/- has been rejected. A further prayer seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus on respondent nos. 2 and 3 directing them to appoint the petitioners on the said post, has also been made in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that, sometime in the year 1994, names were sent from the employment 2 exchange for appointment on the post of Lab/Pathological Technician and the names of the petitioners were also duly forwarded. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners obtained diploma from Medical Laboratory Technology Institute, Kaloor, Kochin. The petitioners were issued admit card and a written examination was conducted on 28.12.1994 in which petitioners were declared successful and thereafter they were invited to appear in the interview and practical examination which were conducted sometime in the year 1995. However, the appointment letter was not issued and the petitioners were informed that since the diploma obtained by the petitioners is not a recognized diploma, they cannot be offered appointment. Thereafter, petitioners approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4106 of 1996 (R), which was allowed with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. However, by the impugned order dated 18.09.1998 the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that they were not possessing requisite qualification. 3. A counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents asserting that although the Implementation Instruction No. 55 was amended on 14.11.1994, the requirement with respect to the requisite qualification, i.e. diploma from recognised institute, remained the same and since the petitioners are not possessing the requisite 3 educational qualification, they were not appointed. It has further been stated that in a similar case in which a direction was given by this Court for appointment of a person on the post of Radiographer, who had also obtained diploma from the same institute, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the order passed by this Court, on the ground that a person not holding the requisite degree/diploma cannot be given appointment. 4.
Facts
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5.
Legal Reasoning
was pleased to interfere with the direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2128 of 1998 (R). The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Arguments
Mr. Rupesh Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that at the time when the names were called from the employment exchange, the requirement of the requisite qualification was made known to the employment exchange and after processing the application of the petitioners, the respondents permitted them to appear in the written examination in which they were declared successful. Thereafter, they were invited for the interview and practical examination, therefore, it is not open to the respondents to say that only at the time when they appeared for interview, their educational qualification was verified and it was found that they are not holding requisite qualification. The respondents cannot contend this for another reason, that is, several other persons who had obtained degree from the same Institute were working in the respondents-company and therefore, they had the knowledge about the validity of degree/diploma awarded by the Medical Laboratory, Technology Institute, Kaloor, Kochi. It has been 4 asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of Implementation Instructions No. 56 dated 14.11.1994, the petitioners are possessing the requisite qualification and that would be clear from the later part of the amended portion of the Implementation Instruction No. 56 which reads as under; “However, the Technicians with 3 years experience from recognised Institute can continue to be recruited and inducted in T & S Gr. C as per our requirement.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that an amendment was carried out in the Implementation Instruction No. 55 creating an exception for the appointment of the persons who were not holding the requisite qualification from a recognized Institute and this has been made clear by the aforesaid provision which has been incorporated in the Implementation Instruction No. 56 which shows that the recruitment on the post of T & S Gr. C would continue for the persons, who were holding recognised degree from the recognised Institute. By filing supplementary-affidavit this has been brought on record that there was no requirement of recognition of the Institutes. The letter issued by the Medical Council of India indicates that it has not recognized any para-medical institute for awarding diploma in Pathology/Lab. Technicians, Radiographer, ECG Technicians, etc. It has also been stated that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has also certified that there is no such requirement under the law under which a diploma in the said 5 course is required to be recognized. Based on such documents, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though the word 'recognised' appears in the Implementation Instruction Nos. 55 and 56, it cannot be given effect to and insisted upon by the respondents and the petitioners cannot be denied appointment. 7. Per-contra, Ms. Banani Verma, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have misconstrued the provision contained in Implementation Instruction No. 56. The requirement of having a diploma from the recognized Institute is the necessary condition for appointment on the post of T & S Grade-D. She has further submitted that one such matter had gone up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court