Director General of Mines Safety, Dhanbad and another vs Mosali Ashok Chander Reddy and another

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.—The most accepted methodology of governmental working is fairness. In the event there is any departure from the concept of fairness, there ought not to be any hesitation, insofar as Law Courts are concerned, in striking down such action, since arbitrariness is the anti-thesis of law. Law Courts exist for the Society and in the event Law Courts fail to rise up to the occasion or fail to reach to the expectation of the people, the Society would perish and the Law Courts will lose their existence and efficacy.

It is on this back-drop that the matter under consideration ought to be dealt with and in order to appreciate the contentions raised, the factual aspect of the matter ought to be adverted to at this juncture briefly. The Chairman of the Board of Mining Examinations, under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, announced examination for various posts created under the Mines Act and the Coal Mines Regulations. While it is tnie, the examination did take place and as a matter of fact, the results have also been declared. But subsequently, it transpired to the concerned authorities that there were certain malpractices in the statutory examination. The matter was enquired into by the Central Bureau of Investigation and a Committee was appointed to consider the matter and subsequently, on the recommendation of the Committee, the cancellation of the examination was effected by the Board of Mining Examinations at its meeting dated 28th April, 1997. Be it noted that on 19th February, 1997, the Central Government, in exercise of the power under Regulation 11(16) (a) (iii) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, issued a directive that the aforesaid examination would stand cancelled and the examination is to be held afresh within a period of three months for all the candidates who had appeared for the said examination. Some exception was made by reason of pendency of certain writ petitions before the Patna High Court and as well as before this Court. The exception was carved out in the general notice obviously by reason of the fact that matters were pending in the High Courts and were sub-judice. We do not see any act of indiscipline or infirmity in such an exclusion.

On the factual back-drop, it further appears that subsequent to the cancellation, however, two writ petitions - one before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and another before the Patna High Court - were filed but were dismissed and subsequently, the matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in IA Nos.3 and 4 in SLA (Civil) Nos. 5225 and 5226 of 1997 directed:

"Now that the examination is cancelled we see no reason to interfere. IAs are dismissed."

Be it further recorded that after the dismissal of the IAs., as above by the Supreme Court, the Special Leave Petitions were subsequently withdrawn and the Supreme Court recorded a finding of "Dismissed as withdrawn."

One redeeming feature ought to be noted at this juncture: The examination is a statutory examination for grant of First Class Mine Manager''s Certificate of competency; Second Class Mine Manager''s Certificate of competency; Surveyor Certificate of competency and Overman Certificate of Competency under the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. Safety is the predominant factor in coal mines and if, before the grant of the certificate, the concerned Regulatory authority feels it expedient, by reason of certain cogent reasons, that the examination cannot be allowed to be finalised, the Law Court would not be justified in replacing its opinion as against the opinion of the expert body. Public safety is dependant, as noted above, on the capabilities of these mine safety engineers or mine managers. The Standards ought to be very high and there ought not to be any compromise in regard thereto. Law provides certain agencies to take recourse to steps which would ensure public safety and the Law Courts, in our view, would not be justified in interfering with such a concept of public safety or introduction of some measure or method, by which mere can even remotely be said to be a compromise with the quality. The examination is held under strict rules and regulations and the authorities ought to be left with some amount of discretion without being interfered with.

These appeals pertain to a judgment of the learned single Judge wherein the learned single Judge lias been pleased to allow the writ petitions and the appellants-respondents have been directed to issue certificates pursuant to the respective examinations conducted by them. In the contextual facts, however, we are unable to record our concurrence with the findings of the learned single Judge. In any event, the learned single Judge has not been able to appreciate the order of the Supreme Court in a proper perspective. The Supreme Court, while it is true, in an interlocutory application dealt with the matter but the Supreme Court has refused to pass any order by reason of the cancellation of the examination. The reason is obvious and as indicated therein and as such, merely by saying, in the language of the learned single Judge:

"However, it is only on interlocutory order and they have not decided the correctness or the validity of the decision taken by the respondents in cancelling the examination and holding it afresh''''.

does not, in our view, seem to be a correct reading of the order of the Supreme Court. The cancellation of the examination as recorded by the Supreme Court and recording of inability to interfere by reason of such cancellation ought to have been taken note of and appreciated by the learned single Judge, more so, having due regard to the nature of the examination and involvement of public safely therein. Reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Anamica Mishra and another, Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others, , in our view, is completely mis-placed since the same is clearly distinguishable on facts.

For the reasons as above, we do deem it fit and expedient to allow, these appeals and set aside the order of the learned single Judge. But in the interest of justice and by reason of the fact that candidates have not been able to sit in the examination, which stands cancelled, we direct the respondents that the latter should hold a special examination for such of the candidates who could not avail of the second examination after cancellation of the first examination so as to enable them to appear in the examination and qualify for grant of such certificates. Until holding of such fresh examination and declaration of its results, the writ petitioners'' service conditions, as of today, be maintained subject to the final result in the examination to be held in terms of this order.

The writ appeals are accordingly allowed as above. No order as to costs.