Ganga Prasad and Others vs Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—The Petitioners are presently employees of "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited" (from hereinafter referred to as BSNL). A promotion exercise was conducted by the Department from Class III to Class II posts. As per the Rules, 15 per cent posts had to be filled up by way of promotion from Class III employees. As per the contention of the Petitioners, initially they did not qualify in the written examination, but since not many had qualified a policy decision was taken by BSNL whereby the cut off marks in the qualifying examination were relaxed from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. The case of the Petitioners is that in this relaxation, the Petitioners were qualified. This is further revealed by letter of the General Manager, BSNL dated 5.5.2005, wherein he has recommended, inter alia, the case of the Petitioners under the relaxation scheme. Since the Petitioners were not being considered for promotion, they made a representation before the concerned Authorities on 24.10.2005. Since this representation of the Petitioners was not being decided, the Petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 339 of 2006 (S/S) Ganga Prasad and Ors. v. Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr., which was disposed of on 9.3.2006 directing the Respondents to decide the representation of the Petitioners within six weeks. Consequently, the representation of the Petitioners was rejected by the Asstt. General Manager (Admn) on 21.7.2006 stating that though the Petitioners had crossed the cut off marks under the relaxation scheme, yet there were no posts in the circle, on which the Petitioners could be absorbed as there were other candidates who had got higher marks than the Petitioners. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

The Petitioners have contended that although there are posts lying vacant of Junior Telecom Operator, the Petitioners are not being promoted.

BSNL has stated that although there are vacancies lying in the Department, but these are not to be filled by way of promotion, but these vacancies have to be filled up directly from the market. In other words, there are no posts, on which the Petitioners can be promoted. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners as there are no vacancies lying in the Department on which the Petitioners can be promoted. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.