(In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) v. …
Case Details
W. P. (S) No. 6217 of 2002 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Nakul Prasad --- Versus … … Petitioner 1.Central Coal Field Ltd., Ranchi 2.Director, Administration, C.C.L., Ranchi 3.Du. C.P.M. (A), Argada, Hazaribagh 4.Sr. Personnel Officer, Religora Colliery, Hazaribagh 5.Staff Officer (Pers) (A), Sirka, Hazaribagh … Respondents --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: M/s. M. M. Pal, Sr. Advocate & Mahua Palit & A. C. Mahato, Advocate : Mr. Kaustav Panda, Advocate --- Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --- By Court: Petitioner has moved this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for his appointment pursuant to recommendation of D.P.C. held on 19.11.2001 on the post of Mining Sirdar. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed on 20.10.1993 on the post of Category – I Mazdoor in C.C.L. He obtained Gas Testing Certificate on 23.08.1999 and Mining Sirdar Certificate on 13.08.2001. In view of the urgency, the Manager had written a letter for authorising the petitioner for performing the work of Mining Sirdar and by order dated 24.04.2001 (Annexure 3), the petitioner was asked to perform the duties of Mining Sirdar initially for three months and again it was extended by three months. In the meantime, the petitioner appeared in interview on 15.11.2001 for appointment on regular sanctioned vacant post of Mining Sirdar and his name was considered along with other candidates. The proceeding dated 19.11.2001 of DPC would disclose that the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment on the post of -2- Mining Sardar. His name was placed at serial number 1 in the recommendation of DPC. However, the petitioner was not granted promotion for a considerable period, and therefore, he filed representation before the authorities and finally approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondents has been filed in which it has been admitted that the name of the petitioner was recommended by the DPC. However, as the Chief General Manager who is the competent authority did not agree to fill up the post, the petitioner was not appointed on the post of Mining Sirdar pursuant to recommendation dated 19.11.2001 of the DPC. A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed by the respondents in which a stand has been taken that the competent authority i.e., the Chief General Manager did not approve the recommendation dated 19.11.2001, but the other members of the DPC had made the recommendation. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that once the name of the petitioner has been recommended by the DPC and the name of petitioner appeared at serial no. 1 in the said recommendation, it was not open to the respondents not to promote the petitioner on the post of Mining Sirdar. No reason has been disclosed by the respondents except that the competent authority did not agree to fill up the post. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that such a stand of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and it cannot be approved by the Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was not directed to perform the duties of Mining Sirdar, rather on his own request, he was allowed to perform the work on the post of Mining Sirdar by letter dated 24.04.2001 (Annexure 3) and a further extension was granted for -3- performing the duties on the post of Mining Sirdar. He has further submitted that since the recommendation of DPC was not approved by the competent authority, the petitioner could not have been appointed on the post of Mining Sirdar. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has acquired the necessary qualification and he is in possession of Mining Sirdar Certificate which was awarded to him on 13.08.2001. It is also not in dispute that the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no. 1 in the recommendation of the DPC dated 19.11.2001 and there were two vacancies out of which one was unreserved. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken the plea that since the competent authority did not approve the recommendation, the petitioner could not be appointed. From the materials on record, I find that such a stand as projected in the supplementary counter affidavit is not corroborated by the documents brought on record. The documents brought on record is the proceeding of DPC dated 19.11.2001 which clearly indicates that all the other members of the Committee had approved and recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Mining Sirdar. An authority is required to follow the rule of law and it is not permissible that the competent authority according to his whims and fancies would decide the matter. The action of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law. For such action of the respondents, the petitioner had suffered for more than 12 years. The Chief General Manager has not given any reason for not approving the recommendation of D.P.C. Not assigning any reason is violation of natural justice. In “Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. Dy. Cit and others” reported in (2007) 2 SCC 181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “23. We, however, need not dilate on the said question being not very necessary for the purpose of this case. But it is beyond any cavil that ordinarily unless excluded by operation of a statute, the superior courts while exercising -4- power of judicial review shall proceed on the basis that assignment of reasons is imperative in character. When an authority, be it administrative or quasi-judicial adjudicates on a dispute and if its order is appealable or subject to judicial review, t would be necessary to spell out the reasons therefor. While applying the principles of natural justice, however the court must also bear in mind the theory of useless formality and the prejudice doctrine.” 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 19.11.2001, the date when the recommendation was made by the promotion committee. Order to be complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, the petitioner would be entitled for all other consequential monetary benefits accruing to him on account of such grant of promotion on the post of Mining Sirdar. 10. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 3rd day of May, 2013 R.Shekhar/AFR/Cp.2 (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)