The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 622 of 2023 Rakesh Kumar Dubey, age 45 years, Son of Sri Ramadhar Dubey, resident of Kharaundha, P.O. and P.S. Belhath, District – Garhwa ... Versus Appellant 1.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Dharbhanga House, P.O., P.S. & District – Ranchi. 2.The Gneral Manager (Recruitment), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi. … --------- … ... Respondents HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --------- : : --------- For Appellant For Respondents-CCL
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate. 03rd January 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. A copy of merit/panel list approved by the competent authority is tendered by Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the Central Coalfields Ltd. 2. 3. Taken on record. The appellant has questioned the legality of the order dated 10th April 2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1018 of 2021. The writ Court has held that relaxation in age limit for appointment to the post of Junior Overman pertains to a policy decision and, moreover, the selected candidates have already been appointed and therefore no interference was warranted in this matter by the Court. 4. W.P. (S) No. 1018 of 2021 was dismissed observing as under: “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 2 L.P.A. No. 622 of 2023 limit of aspirants for the post of Junior Overman has been fixed as 30 years and consequently this writ application is dismissed.” 5. The appellant who was an aspirant for appointment to the post of Junior Overman has pleaded that he is entitled for age relaxation. This claim of the appellant is based on the fact that for the same post an advertisement was issued in the year 2006 notifying 18 vacancies but the selection process did not commence and the vacancies were included in the second advertisement which was issued on 12th March 2008 for 103 posts of Junior Overman. However, the selection process for Junior Overman pursuant to second advertisement was also kept in abeyance and a third advertisement was issued in February/March 2010 but by that time the appellant had crossed maximum age limit of 30 years. 6. In the above background, the appellant approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4408 of 2010 for quashing a part of the third advertisement by which maximum age limit is fixed. The appellant was, in turn, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant age relaxation to him. In the writ proceeding, an order was passed on 23rd December 2010 to permit the appellant to appear in the examination which was scheduled to be held on 02nd January 2011. The appellant was included in the list of successful candidates who were called for interview but the respondents did not declare his result even though his name was included in the list of successful candidates; a copy of the select list was produced before the writ Court. Constrained, the appellant filed I.A. No. 4600 of 2020 in W.P. (S) No. 4408 of 2010 seeking a direction upon the respondents to declare his result and make appointment on the post of Junior Overman. 7. By an order dated 11th September 2020, W.P.(S) No.4408 of 2010 was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a representation before the General Manager (P&IR) of the Central Coalfields Ltd. Pursuant thereto, the appellant moved a representation before the respondent no. 2 who, however, did not accede to his representation for appointment on the post of Junior Overman. In the order dated 11th November 2020, the General Manager (Recruitment), CCL referred to the decisions in Mallikarjuna Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh (1990) 2 SCC 707 and Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K. Jotheeswara Pillai (2007) 9 SCC 461 and decided that age relaxation cannot be granted to the appellant. 3 L.P.A. No. 622 of 2023 8. In the second proceeding, the writ Court declined to interfere with the order dated 11th November 2020 passed by the General Manager (Recruitment), CCL on the ground that the fixing of the age limit and giving age relaxation are the matters which exclusively fall within the domain of the executive powers of the government. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant who extensively referred to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4408 of 2010, we have formed an opinion that this was an arbitrary act on the part of the respondents not to appoint the appellant on the post of Junior Overman. The writ petition was filed in the year 2010 and the appellant by virtue of the Court’s order participated in the selection process and was declared successful. The writ Court in its order dated 11th September 2020 specifically referred to the list of the successful candidates and made an observation that the representation of the appellant shall be decided in the light of the list of successful candidates, which was produced through I.A. No. 4600 of 2020. In the order dated 11th September 2020, the writ Court has also made an observation that the result of the appellant was withheld only because of the pendency of the writ petition. The writ Court has made such a specific observation in paragraph no. 4 which reads as under: “4. From record it appears that pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2010 passed in this case, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and thereby he has been successful which is apparent from Annexure-10 to the I.A. No. 4600 of 2020. Annexure-10 is the list of successful General candidates for the post of Junior Overman. From bare perusal of Annexure-10, it appears that the result of the petitioner has been withheld due to pendency of this case before this Court.” 10. This is also quite apparent from a glance at the order dated 11th
Decision
September 2020 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4408 of 2010 that the writ petition was not dismissed on merits. On the contrary, the writ Court’s observations sufficiently indicate that the appellant who is a meritorious candidate should not be denied appointment. In the select list under the general category, the candidate at serial no. 1 has secured 88.5 per cent marks and the appellant is placed at serial no. 3 having scored 85.4 per cent marks. It further appears that a total of 76 candidates were selected under the general category in which the last selected candidate secured 70.5 marks. In the present situation, where the appellant was eligible to participate in the selection exercise under the advertisements issued on earlier two occasions and now he has secured third position in the merit-list, the respondent-authority was required to keep in mind that it would be in the interest of the CCL that a 4 L.P.A. No. 622 of 2023 meritorious candidate is appointed in the organisation. Furthermore, as it would appear from the third advertisement, there were 76 posts under the general category whereas the list prepared by the C.C.L. contains only 75 candidates. Apparently, one post was kept aside for the appellant presumably for the reason that the writ petition was pending before this Court. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 10th April 2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1018 of 2021 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and, consequently, L.P.A. No. 622 of 2023 is also allowed. APK (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)