Sunil Kumar Paswan v. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited)

6. Chhotelal Das Son of Sri Saheblal Das, resident of Quarter No.102/C Jenyns Road (Railway Colony) PO Liluah, PS Belur, District Howrah, West Bengal.

7. Anju Anima Minz, Daughter of Sushil Minz, Resident of Village Balrampur (Narkopi), PO Narkopi, PS Bero, Balarampur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

8. Raja Hari Son of Sri Bahadur Hari, Resident of Village Bermo 4 No., PO Gandhinagar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

9. Vikrama Ram son of Sri Saryug Ram, Resident of Village Bhanachak, PO Majhaulia, PS Majhaulia, District West Champaran, Bihar.

10. Arjun Kumar Son of Sri Parmatma Prasad, Resident of Qtr. No.N2/125, Sunderpur, PO Sunderpur, PS Lanka, District Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. … Petitioners -versus-

1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. … Respondents WITH W.P.(S) No. 7118 of 2017 ----

1. Koleshwar Paswan Son of Sri Narayan Paswan, Resident of Village Achal Jamu, PO Bishnugarh, PS Bishnugarh, District Hazaribagh (825312), Jharkhand.

2. Himmat Singh Son of Sri Nawal Kishore, Resident of Ward No.01 Mandrella Road, Jatawas, PO PS Bagar, District Jhunjhunu, 333023 (Rajasthan).

3. Ravindra Kumar Ravi Son of Sri Jhari Ram, Resident of Village Kudaga Kala, PO Semra, PS Chainpur, District Palamau, Pin Code 822110 (Jharkhand).

4. Manik Saren Son of Sri Binod Saren, Resident of Village Sode Para, PO Boinchi, PS Pandua, District Hooghly, Pin Code 712134 (W.B.).

5. Rupesh Kumar Shaw Son of Sri Dashrath Shaw, Resident of 26 Champa Road, PO PS Rishra, District Hooghly, Pin Code 712248 (W.B.).

6. Ajeet Kumar Singh Son of Sri Anil Singh, Resident of Village & Po Shahpur, Via Garwal, PO Garwar, District Ballia, Pin Code 277121 (U.P.).

7. Mani Ram Rajwar Son of Sri Niranjan Rajwar, Resident of Village Haratu, PO Sikidiri, PS Ranchi, District Ranchi, Pin Code 835219 (Jharkhand).

8. Gurudayal Verma Son of Sri Prabhudayal Verma Son of Sri Prabhudayal Verma, Resident of H. No.51D Pandey Colony East Adarsh Nagar Sonari, Jamshedpur, PO PS Sonari, District East Singhbhum, Pin Code 831011 (Jharkhand).

9. Abhishek Kumar Yadav Son of Kallu Yadav, Resident of SA 17/64 Pahariya Nakki Ghat Saranath Varanasi, Pin Code 221007 (U.P.). … Petitioners -versus-

1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Darbhanga House, Ranchi. 3

2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. … Respondents ---- WITH W.P.(S) No. 7119 of 2017 ----

1. Sunil Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of Rauna Khurd Usarahiya, PO Bela, PS Cholapur, District Varanasi, Pin Code 221101 (U.P.).

2. Ravi Shankar Bharti Son of Sri Nanad Lal Ram, Resident of village Assoiya, PO Mirzapur, PS Marhowrha, District Chhapra, Saran Bihar, correspondence Address NT-1/353, Armapur Estate, PO PS Armapur, District Kanpur, Pin Code 208009 (U.P.).

3. Nilamber Sharma Son of Sri Bharatjee Sharma, resident of 13 No. Dangal Near Panipul, PO & PS Aandal, District Burdwan, Pin Code 713321 (W.B.).

4. Jayesh Ranjan Son of Sri Deo Nath Ram, Resident of Village Surat Chapra, PO Asahani, PS Rasulpur, District Saran, Pin Code 841204 (Bihar).

5. Kanhaiya Lal Son of Sri Hari Lal, resident of Village Khujjhi, PO PS Karpa College Dobhi, District Jaunpur, Pin Code 222149 (U.P.).

6. Deepak Kumar Yadav Son of Sri Ramsingh Yadav, Resident of Village Kokta, PO Mahuapur Barahalganj, PS Mahuapar, District Gorakhpur, Pin Code 273402 (U.P.).

7. Deepak Diwakar son of Sri Dhani Ram Diwakar, resident of H. No.366 Rana Pratap Nagar, (Kanpur), PO PS Rawatpur Gawn, District Kanpur Nagar, Pin Code 208019 (U.P.).

8. Dharmendar Kumar Son of Inderjeet Ram, resident of C-94 Gali No.5 Swami Shradhanand Colony Near Bhalswa Dairy, PO PS Samaipur, District North West Delhi, Pin Code 110042 (Delhi). 9. Purushottam Singh Son of Sri Parshuram Singh, resident of Pani Tanki Shyambandh Canteen Para, PO PS Asansol (M Corp), District Bhurdwan, Pin Code 713325 (W.B.). … Petitioners -versus-

1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. … Respondents ---- WITH W.P.(S) No. 7137 of 2017 ----

1. Swadeep Kumar Raman Son of Shri Laljee Raman @ Laljee Ram Bucchi, Resident of Village Mundwal, PO PS Fatehullahpur, District Ghazipur (U.P.).

2. Rahul Mourya Son of Shri Santosh Mourya, Resident of Dr. Ambedkar Colony, Jhansi Road Shivpuri, PO PS Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (M.P.).

3. Dharmendra Choudhary Son of Sri Ram Chandra Choudhary, Resident of Village Mathon Beliyad, Dhanbad, Mathon Market, Area 4, PO PS Dhanbad (Jharkhand). 4

4. Surenjit Pal Son of Pareshnath Pal, Resident of Village PO Majigram, PS Mongalkote, District Burdwan (W.B.).

5. Dheeraj Kumar Gautam Son of Shri Ramesh Ram, resident of Village Kharbadih, PO PS Kharbadih, District Ghazipur (U.P.). 6. Santu Halder Son of Shri Rajeshwar Halder, Resident of Village Kachlia, PO Gobardanga, PS Habra, District North 24 Parganas (W.B.).

7. Kartick Das, Son of Shri Naba Kumar Das, Resident of Suri Vevikananda Palli, PO PS Suri, District Birbhum, West Bengal. 8. Binod Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Paras Nath Choudhary, Resident of House No.58, BL/No.14, P.O. Kankinara, PS Jagdal, District North 24 Parganas (W.B.).

9. Dashrath Kannouja, Son of Shri Raj Kumar Kannounja, Resident of Village Mahmoodpur, PO PS Mughalsarai, District Chandaulia (U.P.).

10. Sanjit Sarkar Son of Shri Sushil Sarkar, Resident of Village Kalyandaha, PO Kalyandaha, PS Chapra, District Nadia (W.B.). … Petitioners -versus-

1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. … Respondents ---- WITH W.P.(S) No. 2975 of 2018 ----

1. Anand Kumar Son of Sri Ram, resident of Village Sakara, PO Husenpur, PS Husenpur, District Ghazipur (U.P.) Pin 233001. 2. Bikram Paswan Son of Balmiki Paswan, Resident of Sodepur, 9/10 No. Line Par Colony Kali Mandir, PO Kulti, PS Kulti M., District Paschim Burdwan, West Bengal. … Petitioners -versus-

1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

3. Manager (Personnel/Recruitment) CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. … Respondents ---- WITH W.P.(S) No. 4220 of 2018 ----

1. Pradeep Kumar Rawat Son of Narayan Ram Rawat, Resident of Mohalla Gorabazar, Chhota Shiv Mandir, PO Pir Nagar, PS Pir Nagar, District Ghazipur (U.P.).

2. Sushil Mahato Son of Haradhan Mahto, Resident of Village Baligara, PO Ban Baligara, PS Purulia Muffasil, District Purulia, West Bengal.

3. Bhagyadhar Bauri Son of Late Natu Bauri, Resident of Village Huchukpara, PO Rakhera, PS Hura, District Purulia, West Bengal. 5

4. Animesh Rajak Son of Late Jagdish Rajak, Resident of Village Manguria, PO Maguria Lalpur, PS Hura, District Purulia, West Bengal.

5. Amit Karmakar Son of Mathur Karmakar, Resident of Village Joynagar, PO Hutmura, PS Hutmura, District Purulia, West Bengal. … Petitioners -versus-

1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

3. Manager (Personnel / Recruitment) CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. … Respondents ---- WITH W.P.(S) No.5156 of 2018 ----

1. Vijay Kumar Son of Nanku Ram, Resident of Village Khapradih, Gali Mohalla, Bhatha Para, PO Kirit, PS Nawagarh, District Jangir Champa (Chattisgarh).

2. Raj Kiran Son of Dev Charan, Resident of Village Kapradih, PO Kirit, PS Nawagarh, District Jangir Champa (Chhatisgarh).

3. Surendra Kumar Das Son of Garib Rabi Das, Resident of 129 B, Karl Marx Sarani Khidderpore, PO Khidderpore, PS Watgunj, District Kolkata (W.B.) 700023.

4. Sant Kumar Son of Nandu Chauhan, Resident of Address Madhuban Parasbaniya, PO Nadu Khurkee, PS Madhuban, District Dhanbad 828307. … Petitioners -versus-

1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

2. The Chief Manager Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

3. Manager (Personnel / Recruitment) CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. … Respondents ---- WITH W.P.(S) No. 2130 of 2021 ----

1. Raviranjan Kumar son of Upendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Vill Lalganj, PO Sugnu, PS Sadar, Lalganj, District Ranchi, Jharkhand (835103).

2. Bijoy Roy Son of Jiten Roy, resident of Lodhurka, PO PS Hura, District Purulia, West Bengal (723101).

3. Sudheer Kumar Son of Kishori Prasad, Resident of Near Shiv Mandir, Chhotka Karsan, Malhari, PO PS Imamganj, District Gaya, Bihar (824206).

4. Ranjit Kumar Son of Kalpu, Ram, resident of Village Ramgadhawan, PO Khetalpur, PS Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, U.P.(221104). 6

5. Satish Chand Son of Mahesh Chand, Resident of 236 Raghunathpura, Pinahat Dehat, PO PS Pinahat, District Agra, U.P. (283123).

6. Vinay Kumar Sonkar, Son of Tara Chandra Sonkar, Resident of 368 Rana Pratap Nagar, Rawatpur S.O. Kanpur Nagar, PO PS Kanpur, District Kanpur, U.P. (208019).

7. Vijay Nagle Son of Kishorilal Nagle, Resident of 216 Near Ram Mandir, Patel Ward 16, PO PS Sadar, District Betul 460001 (Madhya Pradesh). … Petitioners -versus-

1. The Central Coalfield Limited (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

3. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

4. General Manager, Personnel/Rectt., Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. … Respondents ---- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate ---- O R D E R RESERVED ON 24.11.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 6.12.2022 14/ 6.12.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In these writ petitions, petitioners have prayed to quash the decision dated 03.12.2019 contained in Ref. No.CCL/Rect./SG/2019/3648 taken by the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited, wherein they have decided to cancel the advertisement published for recruitment of 500 Security Guards vide Employment Notice No.CCL/G.M.(P&IR/R/527/2014/7104 dated

25.09.2014. Petitioners also pray to appoint them on the post of Security Guards as they have applied pursuant to the advertisement and fulfilled all the criteria for being appointed.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Central Coalfields Limited had published an advertisement No.CCL/G.M.(P&IR/R/527/2014/7104 dated 25.09.2014 through which they decided to recruit and appoint 500 7 Security Guards and persons in other technical posts, like, Accountant etc. Written test was conducted and these petitioners duly qualified the written test, but, thereafter the Central Coalfields Limited went silent and did not proceed with the recruitment process as a result of which petitioners had to approach this Court by filing these writ petitions. This Court by order dated 28.11.2019 had directed the Central Coalfields Limited to take a decision on the recruitment either way. Central Coalfields Limited, thereafter decided to cancel the recruitment so far as it related to appointment of 500 Security Guards is concerned. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid decision is absolutely illegal, as just because they had approached the High Court, the aforesaid decision was taken. Their contention is that the respondents, on one hand, went on with the appointment of other technical posts, but so far as Security Guards are concerned, they have abandoned the process, which is arbitrary. Their claim is that Central Coalfields Limited should proceed with the recruitment process and appoint the petitioners. Lastly they argued that the order is non-speaking and thus, cancellation of the process can be treated to be arbitrary as it does not fulfill the requirement of reasonableness.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents led by Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta submitted that whether to recruit or not to recruit is absolutely the prerogative of the employer, which cannot be questioned. Employer has right to abandon any recruitment process. No one has any right to be appointed. Thus, petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the decision wherein Central Coalfields Limited has decided to abandon and cancel the recruitment process. It is their contention that the ground for cancellation is cogent and cannot be said to be arbitrary. As per them, there is a large number of workmen in Central Coalfields Limited, who were identified to be surplus. When it came to the notice that there was surplus manpower, it was decided that the excess manpower must be adjusted against the existing vacancy of Security Personnel. Further, there are large number of dependents seeking appointment on compassionate ground, so a policy decision was taken to appoint the applicants of compassionate ground against the existing vacancies of Security Guards. Thus, a conscious decision was taken by the Directors of the Company not to proceed with the advertisement to fill the posts of Security Personnel. So far as appointing Accountants and others, they submit that these are technical posts, thus, the respondents proceeded. Mr. Mehta further submits that the selection process was in three folds, first a written test, thereafter physical test and the third step was interview and in this 8 case only the written test was conducted and the rest of the test processes were yet to be conducted.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

6. It is well settled principle of law that a person does not have any vested right of appointment. Even selectee has no indefeasible right to appointment nor is State under duty to fill up vacancies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lt. CDR. M. Ramesh versus Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 16 SCC 195 while referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases, at paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof, has held as under:-

21. The first issue that arises is whether the petitioners have any vested right to claim that the result must be declared and if the petitioners are selected, they should be appointed. This Court in Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana held that merely because the Government had sent a requisition to UPSC to select the candidates for appointments, did not create any vested right in the candidate called for the interview to be appointed. It was also held that the authority which has the power to specify the method of recruitment must be deemed to have the power to revise and substitute the same. The Court, however, also laid down that at best the Government may be required justify its action on touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. This view has been followed in a large number of cases. In Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Patna, this Court held that there is a distinction between selection and appointment. It was held that a person who is successful in the selection process, does not acquire any right to be appointed automatically. Such a person has no indefeasible right of appointment.

22. It is, thus, well settled that merely because a person has been selected does not given that person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment. As far as the present cases are concerned, results have not been declared and even the selection process is not complete. As such, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioners have no enforceable right to claim that the result should be declared or that they should be appointed if found meritorious. 9

7. Thus, it is well settled now that a person has got no right to be appointed. It is also the prerogative of the respondents to cancel an appointment process and keep any post vacant, but the decision not to fill up the post or keeping the posts vacant or that of cancelling the advertisement must be bonafide and should be for just and appropriate reasons.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shankarsan Das versus Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 while referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases, at paragraph 7 thereof, has held as under:-

7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.

9. The reasons for cancelling should not be malafide or arbitrary or whimsical. Keeping that principle in view, I have gone through the reasonings, which have been given. Though the document, which the respondents have annexed, which suggests that the advertisement has been cancelled, is in one line only indicating that the respondents have cancelled the recruitment process but from the writ petitions and annexures filed therewith, it is clear that the petitioners were served with the information and reasons as to why recruitment process has been cancelled. Annexure 8 in W.P.(S) No. 7115 of 10 2017 suggests that following are grounds for cancelling the recruitment process:-  ... That a large number of workmen have been identified surplus strength of Manpower in the course of drafting Manpower Budget for the year 2017-18. Such excess manpower has been decided to be adjusted against existing vacancies of Security Personnel.  … Further, keeping in view the large number of pending applications for appointment on compassionate ground, a policy decision has been taken to make appointment of suitable candidates on compassionate ground against the existing vacancies of Security Personnel.  … In this view of the fact, presently the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.CCL/GM(P&IR/R)/527/ 2014/ 7104 dated 25.09.2014 has been kept abeyance in order to exhaust the existing vacancies by making appointment on compassionate ground and by adjustment of existing manpower. If any vacancy still persists thereafter, the management may decide to proceed with a proper selection process.

9. The aforesaid reasonings, by no means, can be said to be arbitrary and whimsical. The grounds taken are logical and acceptable. As there are excess manpower in Central Coalfields Limited, they intend to adjust the excess manpower against the existing vacancies of Security Personnel otherwise such excess manpower had to be retrenched or if they are allowed to continue, there would be financial loss to the contrary. Further the ground that there are number of applicants for compassionate appointment for which they need the posts is also a justified ground to cancel the recruitment process.

10. The respondents have taken a plea that so far as other posts are concerned, Central Coalfields Limited had gone ahead to fill up the said posts. This argument does not find favour to the petitioners, as those posts of accountants etc. are technical posts where people with technical expertise needs to be appointed.

11. Since the petitioners do not have any vested right over the posts and they cannot claim appointment by way of right, decision of the respondents to cancel the recruitment process has to be weighed in the touchstone of reasonableness in the instant case. I find that the grounds and 11 reasons given are justified and not arbitrary. Thus, I find no merits in these writ petitions. These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)