Janki Prasad Yadav vs Central Coalfields Limited

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—Claiming promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, the petitioner seeks cancellation of office order dated 14.08.2014 whereby eight other persons were granted promotion.

Heard.

Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that "Cadre Scheme For Ministerial Staff General Clerical Cadre" does not provide mode of selection through written examination and it also does not provide distribution of marks for educational qualification, experience and Annual Confidential Report entries (hereinafter referred to as ''ACR''), however, the respondent-CCL adopted an unique procedure for promotion from Special Grade Clerk/ Sr. Clerk to the post of Office Superintendent. It is contended that while adopting such a procedure, juniors to the petitioner were promoted but, claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent has been ignored. It is further contended that the selection procedure adopted by the respondent-CCL has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as, some of the employees who received entries in their ACRs ''Very Good/Outstanding'' got more marks, although the petitioner in his entire service did not receive any adverse entry was given ''Good'' remarks only.

Pursuant to order dated 30.11.2016, original records pertaining to promotion to the post of Office Superintendent have been produced in the Court.

Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL, referring to the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, submits that selection/promotion on the post of Office Superintendent has been made strictly in accordance with the Cadre Scheme which provides manner and mode of promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. The learned counsel has referred to the Manpower Budget prepared for Kathara area of CCL for the year 2013-14 to contend that only 08 posts were vacant for which promotion has been granted vide order dated 14.08.2014.

Briefly stated, the petitioner, appointed on 18.11.1979 as trainee, was promoted as Lower Division Clerk-cum-Typist in the pay-scale of Rs.508-808/- on 1.10.1982. He was later on promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk vide office order dated 12.7.1995 and to the post of Senior Clerk (Special Cadre) on 30.06.2008. Pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent-CCL, an exercise for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent was undertaken. The minimum eligibility criteria was 5 years'' continuous service on the post of Special Grade Clerk/Senior Clerk. The petitioner, who had attained minimum eligibility criteria, was also considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent however, he was lower in the merit list and therefore, he was not promoted on the said post .The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-CCL did not notify total number of posts and in the counter affidavit also it has not been specifically stated that there were only 08 vacant posts of Office Superintendent and therefore, a direction may be issued for considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the said post, is untenable. The respondents have promoted only 08 persons on the post of Office Superintendent which was the total number of vacancies for the year 2013-14. This is reflected in the Manpower Budget. In context of the contention that the persons, who joined the respondent CCL after the petitioner, were granted promotion, it needs to be recorded that under Rule 3.2 the criteria for promotion is merit-cum-seniority. And, while preparing the merit-list seniority has also been accorded consideration and for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, beyond 5 years'' continuous service as Special Gr. Clerk/ Sr. Clerk two marks is allotted for every year exceeding the minimum 5 years'' experience. This criteria has been made applicable to all the eligible candidates. The petitioner who participated in the written test after he found that he has not been promoted, cannot be permitted to throw challenge to the procedure adopted by the respondent-CCL. Rules provide that promotion from Grade ''B'' to Grade ''A'' shall be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and while so, the merit-list prepared on the basis of academic qualification, ACR entries etc. cannot be faulted.

Responding to the contention that the petitioner is Intermediate in Science, however, he has been allotted marks for Matriculation qualification only, the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has pointed out that even if the petitioner is allotted two more marks he would not make the grade, inasmuch as, the last selected candidate in the ''General'' category has been awarded 62.5 marks whereas, the petitioner could get 57.5 marks. Plea that recording in ACRs of other employees as ''Very Good/Extraordinary'' which ultimately led to exclusion of the petitioner from the select list is also not tenable. Entries in the ACRs are based on performance and satisfaction of the superior officers and at this stage the petitioner who was assessed "Good" cannot raise a grievance on this score. The learned counsel, referring to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-CCL has contended that specific allegation by the petitioner that written examination of one Firoj Alam was taken in a separate room has not been specifically controverted by the respondent-CCL. The petitioner, at no point in time, raised any objection in this regard. For the first time, he has made such allegation in the writ petition. Even if the respondents have not specifically traversed this allegation, it cannot be inferred that the promotion order dated 14.08.2014 is founded on some extraneous considerations.

Finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.