Baleshwar Prasad Singh vs Coal India Limited and Others

Tapan Sen, J.—Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents.

In this Writ Application, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the communication dated 20.3.1996 as contained at Annexure-6 by which the Petitioner has been informed that since he could not secure the qualifying marks in the D.P.C. held on 26.10.1995 for purposes of promotion from the M-1 to M-2 Grade, the D.P.C., therefore, had not recommended his case for promotion. The Petitioner farther prays that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding upon the Respondents to promote the Petitioner from M-l to M-2 Grade on the ground that juniors have been given promotion without considering his case. The Petitioner further submits that under the provisions of Rule 4.7(c) of the Common Coal Cadre, he was entitled to promotion, having completed three continuous years of service in the M-1 Grade.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it has been stated, inter alia, that as a matter of fact the Petitioner along with other eligible candidates, were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Board-II). The said committee had adopted three yardsticks for purposes of considering the cases for promotion. These three yardsticks were :

(i) officers securing 85 to 100 marks would be placed in Category ''A''.

(ii) officers securing 75 to 84 marks would be placed in Category ''B''.

(iii) officers securing less than 75 marks would be placed in Category ''C''.

They have further stated that the committee had also taken a decision that they would not be recommending cases of any candidate falling in the 3rd category referred to above i.e. those who had secured less than 75 marks.

According to them as has been stated in Paragraph-10 of the Counter Affidavit, the Petitioner failed to secure even 75 marks and therefore he was placed in Category ''C'' and such, was not recommended.

It is well known that the Writ Court does not issue writ of mandamus directing the authorities to grant promotion unless the grounds for not promoting are established as being either mala fide, perverse or contrary to rules nor can a person be said to have the right to promotion unless he comes within the parameters of the eligibility zone. A person can certainly pray for consideration of his case. In the instant case, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the yardstick that was adopted by the Respondents and therefore the placement of the Petitioner in Category ''C'', he having not secured even 75 marks, cannot be said to be either irrational, illegal, perverse, mala fide or arbitrary. In that view of the matter, no writ can be issued commanding upon the Respondents to promote the Petitioner and consequently a communication intimating the Petitioner about rejection of his representation on the ground that he had not secured the qualifying marks, also cannot be said to be illegal. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner in so far as prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned nor can writ of certiorari be issued quashing Annexure-6.

So far as the allegations against R.A.P. Singh is concerned, this Court refrains from making any comment, in as such as the said R.A.P. Singh has not been impleaded as a party Respondent by name which should have been done if the Petitioner was pleading malice against him.

So far as the Petitioner''s contention as recorded at Paragraph-11, it appears that prior to the date of holding the interview the authorities had entered the word "Outstanding" in the CCR of the Petitioner but after the interview, the said remark had been changed to "Very Good" and no opportunity was given to the Petitioner before downgrading the aforesaid remark. In the counter affidavit Paragraph-11 has not been replied to at all. Similar statements have been made in Paragraph-10 but again that Paragraph has also not even been touched in the counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, the Respondents should reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with law.

While refusing to interfere in respect of the prayers made for issuance of a writ of mandamus to promote the Petitioner and for quashing of Annexure-6, this Court disposes off the Writ Application in respect of the aforesaid limited contention only which is confined only to the extent of considering as to why was the CCR was downgraded without opportunity of hearing and whether this was taken to be ground for not promoting the Petitioner. If it is found that the downgrading was done illegally and without affording any opportunity and if this was taken to be a ground, for not granting promotion, then the Respondents would look at the matter afresh.

Consequently, the Writ Petition is disposed off and the Petitioner is given liberty to file a representation before the respondent No. 4 who will look into the matter and pass an order strictly in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made herein within a period of six months from the receipt of the copy of this order.