AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammad Rafiq, J
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Devendra Kumar Saraswat seeking writ of mandamus declaring Rule 6 of the Rajasthan State Mines
and Minerals Limited (Recruitment & Promotion of Executives) Rules, 1991 (for shot, ‘the Rules of 1991’) to be ultra vires the Constitution of
India, with a direction to the respondent â€" Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited (for short, ‘the respondent Company’). Further prayer
is made for a direction to the respondents to place the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for selection on the post of Assistant Manager
(P&A) (E-1 Category), if any passed, and after taking it on the record, the same may be quashed and set aside. Further direction is sought that the
respondent Company be required to treat the petitioner eligible for the post of Assistant Manager (P&A) (E-1 Category) and it be further directed to
allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the said post.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent Company issued an advertisement for selection on the post of Assistant Manager (P&A)
(E-1 Category) from in-service candidates. The petitioner, being in-service candidate, was eligible for that post. He applied for the same. The
respondent Company rejected his candidature under the garb of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1991 stating that only the candidate of immediate lower post
can apply for the post of Assistant Manager (P&A) (E-1 Category) and as the petitioner is working on the post of Senior Helper (Stagnation), which
is the post of W-4 category, he was not eligible to apply for the said post. The respondent Company issued an advertisement on 24.02.2014 inviting
applications for the post of Assistant Manager (E-1 Category) for different streams including Personal and Administration (P&A) category. In all six
posts of P&A (E-1 Category)Â were advertised. The employees working on the immediate lower post in the respondent Company and possessing
the requisite qualification were also eligible to apply for the said post through proper channel. The service conditions governing the post of Assistant
Manager (E-1 Category) was under the Rules of 1991.
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that there can be no justification for debarring the petitioner, who is an in-
service candidates of the respondent Company, to compete for appointment on the post of Assistant Manager. The learned counsel referred to Clause
7 of the advertisement, which, inter-alia, provides that those employed in Government/Semi-Govt./Public Sector Organization should apply through
proper channel or submit NOC of the concerned department/organization at the time of interview, in the absence of which their candidature is liable to
be cancelled. It is submitted that when the employees of the Government/Semi- Government/Public Sector Organization have been conferred with
eligibility to apply against any of the posts regardless of the status and pay scale, which should be many stages higher than the post applied by them,
there is no rational or intelligible differentia by restraining the eligibility for appointment by direct recruitment on the own employees of the respondent
Company for the next higher post only. The aforesaid Rule does not qualify the test of reasonable classification as the in-service candidates of the
respondent Company or of any Government/Semi- Government/Public Sector Organization, particularly constitute a single homogeneous group and
there is no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by restricting eligibility of the own employees of the respondent Company to the next
higher post and at the same time by providing opportunity to the employees of the Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector Organization of course
through proper channel against any post.
The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument submitted that so far as the selection process that was initiated pursuant to
advertisement has since been finalized and the issue that survives against the petitioner and the issue involved is merely an academic issue.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1991 is discriminatory as it practices hostile discrimination against the
petitioner inasmuch it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be declared ultra vires the Constitution of India and
be struck down.
He has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Manmad Reddy and Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy and Others â€" (2010) 3 SCC
314.
Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to compete against
the post of Assistant Manager (P&A) (E-1 Category) as he, being the departmental candidate, was eligible to compete for the appointment against the
immediate next post. In other words, those departmental candidates working on the immediate lower post, were only eligible and not otherwise. The
petitioner, holding the post of Senior Helper (Stagnation) was in the category of W-3, was not eligible for the appointment on the post of Assistant
Manager. He should have been held the post of W-9 category. The petitioner cannot compare himself with the candidates of other department as
regards eligibility for appointment. In case of departmental candidates of the respondent Company, the upper age limit is 45 years, while the upper age
limit for the candidates of other departments is 35 years. Merely applying for the post cannot become basis as eligibility. The departmental candidates
fulfilling the qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment for the next higher post may also be considered for direct recruitment to the higher post
upon suitable application along-with outside applicants in spite that such departmental candidates may not fulfill the prescribed experience for
promotion to the next higher post. Learned counsel denied that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1991 makes any hostile discrimination. Rule 6 of the Rules of
1991 has purposely made only such departmental candidates eligible for the next higher post holding the post just below one category so that such
incumbent may be more suitable and efficient for the post in comparison to the candidates blow the next higher post.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the relevant Rules, the upper age limit of in-service candidate of the department is 45
years and the petitioner has yet not attained that age and, therefore, if not for the selection process, he could apply for appointment against any post
that may now be advertised if the unreasonable restriction placed in Rule 6 is done away with.
The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Banarsidas and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others â€" AIR 1956 SC 520 and that of the Allahabad High Court in Banarsi Das and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others â€" AIR 1955
All 33.
We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record.
In order to appreciate the import of the impugned Rule, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Rule 6 of the Rules of 1991, which reads as under:-
“6. Departmental candidates, fulfilling the qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment for the next higher post, may also be considered for
direct recruitment to such higher post, upon suitable application, along-with outside applicants, notwithstanding that such departmental candidates may
not fulfill the prescribed experience for promotion to the next higher post.â€
The respondents have not treated the petitioner eligible as according to them, he was working on the post of Senior (Helper (Stagnation), which is W-3
category post, while the advertised post of Assistant Manager (E-1 category) is W-9 category and there was thus difference of six stages but then the
respondent Company in Clause 7 of the advertisement have made the employees of the Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector Organization
eligible for appointment with a condition that NOC of concerned department/organization shall have to be submitted at the time of interview. Clause 7
of the advertisement is reproduced, which reads as under:-
“7. Those employed in Government/Semi-Govt./Public Sector Organization should apply through proper channel or submit NOC of the concerned
department/organization at the time of interview, in the absence of which their candidature is liable to be cancelled.â€
It would be significant to also take note of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1991, which is reproduced here as under:-
“Departmental candidates, fulfilling the qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment for the next higher post, may also be considered for direct
recruitment to such higher post, upon suitable application, along-with outside applicants, notwithstanding that such departmental candidates may not
fulfill the prescribed experience for promotion to the next higher post.â€
In so far as, therefore, the departmental employees are concerned, although they are eligible to apply for direct recruitment only against immediately
next higher post to which they are otherwise eligible for promotion, but in the event of their being selected on the post of direct recruitment, they need
not possess the experience prescribed for promotion on that post. The purpose for which the eligibility of the departmental employees has been
confined to only the next higher post is that this opportunity comes to them as a package that if anyone of them is talented enough he can secure
appointment on next higher post earlier than expected by way of direct recruitmnet even without having the requisite experience for promotion. And
this package also gives them the advantage in terms of upper age limit being 45 years over the open market candidates including those working with
the Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector Organizations for whom the upper age limit is only 35 years. It is evident from the advertisement
itself that the upper age limit of the departmental candidates is 45 years and for open market candidates and for employees of the
Government/SemiGovernment/Public Sector Organizations, it is 35 years. Had the respondents maintained the equal upper age limit for both the
categories, perhaps the petitioner would be justified in making that complaint of discrimination based on unreasonable classification but here restricting
the consideration of the departmental employees without insisting on experience otherwise required for promotion and relaxing theÂ
upper age limit by 10 more years, the respondents are seeking to create a separate class of  those workingÂ
with them with a rider that they shall be eligible for appointment against the quota of direct recruitmentÂ
only against immediately next higher post. However, the consideration of the employees of the Government/Semi-
Government/Public Sector Organizations has not been restricted to any particular post as they are treated at par with open
market candidates and their consideration for direct recruitment would be based on the eligibility not only with regard to qualification they should
possess but also subject to their having not crossed the upper age limit of 35 years, of course, with the age relaxation available to the candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes, upto five years, as per direction of the Government of Rajasthan. In our
view, this is the reasonable classification, which has intelligible differentia and nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. This also disposes of stay application.