D.P. Sinha And Ors vs M/s Coal India Limited And Ors

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to promote the petitioners from Grade E-6 to E-7 i.e. from the

post of Senior Manager to Chief Manager, retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the date. W.e.f which similarly situated persons have been granted

promotion on 28.03.2017 and to that extent respondents be directed to modify petitioners' actual order of promotion from Grade E-6 to E-7, dated

26.05.2017 contained at Annexure-7. Further prayer has been made to grant retrospective promotion to the petitioners from Grade E-6 to E-7, w.e.f.

the year 2014 in view of the fact that since from the year 2014-17, no D.P.C was held which was required to be held every single year according to

Common Coal Cadre Rules. Further prayer has been made to keep the petitioners within the zone of consideration for promotion from the Grade E-7

to E-8.

The petitioners are the employees of Coal India Limited and have been posted under different subsidiaries of Coal India Limited as Executive

Grade E-7 (Chief Manager). The petitioner no. 1 is posted at Dudhichua Project, Northern Coalfield Limited, Singrauli. The petitioner no. 2 is posted

at Eastern Coalfield Limited, Asansol. The petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are posted at Central Mines Planning and Design Institute, Headquarter, Ranchi and

petitioner no. 5 is posted at Nighai Project, Northen Coalfields Limited, Singrauli. The Disciplinary Authority as well as Appointing Authority of the

petitioners is Coal India Limited. The petitioners joined their services with the respondent-Coal India Limited as Junior Executive Trainee on different

dates in the year 1987 and 1989. The petitioners have performed their services for the respondents without any complaint from any corner. The

petitioners were promoted and had reached Grade E-6 which is the post of Senior Manager in the year, 2004. The petitioners were required to be

promoted from the post of Grade E-6 to E-7 i.e. from the post of Senior Manager to Chief Manager. In the year, 2011 new promotional scheme was

introduced for promotion from Grade E-6 to E-7 whereby principle of merit- cum-seniority was introduced but prior to this there was system of

seniority-cum-merit according to the promotional policy of the year, 1992. The issue arose that the vacancies of the year, 2010 can be governed by

new promotional policy of the year, 2011. The respondents merged the post of the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 and granted promotion in the year, 2013

on the basis of promotional policy of the year, 2011. Accordingly, respondents granted promotion to similarly situated persons and in the selection

process the cases of the petitioners was also considered in the year 2013 on the basis of the policy decision of the year, 2011 and promotion was

granted to others on 01.04.2013, not to the petitioners and also in violation of the earlier policy decision in relation to the vacancies of the year, 2010,

even the new policy was brought in the year 2011. The similarly situated persons who were granted promotion on 01.04.2013 which have been

disclosed in para 10 of the writ petition. Aggrieved with the same, such employees moved before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in W.P.(C) No.

12002 (W)/2013 raising the issue that the 2010 vacancies should be governed by the policy decision of seniority-cum-merit of the year, 1992 and not

by the renewed policy of the year, 2011, which prescribes merit-cum-seniority. The matter was decided and it was ordered that selection process

conducted as per 2011 policy was incorrect, and therefore, the order of promotion dated 01.04.2013 was set-aside vide order dated 26.09.2014 by

Calcutta High Court. Pursuant thereto, the promotion order granted to the similarly situated persons on 01.04.2013 was recalled and withdrawn and

the employees were reverted back to the post of Senior Manager (E-6 Grade). The respondents moved in appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench

of Calcutta High Court in A.S.T. 83 of 2016 in which vide order dated 12.01.2017 the order of Single Bench dated 26.09.2014 was upheld but with

some modifications to grant promotion to the aggrieved employees along with private respondent there. Thereafter, order dated 28.03.2017 was

passed by the respondents whereby the similarly situated persons' case for promotion from Grade E-6 to E-7 was considered afresh and they were

granted promotion with effect from 01.04.2013 on the ground of equity as they had served. The case of the petitioners for promotion from Grade E-6

to E-7 was considered on 26.05.2017 but from the date of joining and hence the retrospective promotion from the date of vacancies was not granted

to the petitioners.

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that retrospective promotion was required to be passed in

favour of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2013 keeping in parity with the same treatment given to the others similarly situated at Annexure-7. He

submitted that they are same in their services in E-6 Grade i.e. post of Senior Manager. He submitted that they alongwith petitioners were considered

in the year, 2013 by D.P.C. however, only the similarly situated persons were granted promotion and not the petitioners. He submitted that however

promotion was cancelled vide order dated 24.02.2016 thereafter again all the persons along with the petitioners are similar and their fresh

consideration should have been done on the vacancies of the year, 2013. He submitted that in the year, 2014 no DPC was held in which petitioners

should have participated and this is against their own Common Cadre Rules which provides that that the DPC has to be held each and every year but

after 2013 DPC in the present case was held in the year, 2017. He submitted that the petitioners have suffered 3 years loss for promotion on Grade E-

7, for the loss of which now in the year, 2019, could not be considered for promotion to E-8 Grade. He submitted that this has happened due to delay

on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Rules governing promotion from Grade E-7 to E-8

prescribes 3 years service on E-7 Grade, as provided in policy dated 02.06.2011. He submitted that the respondents took decision to hold DPC for

promotion from the post of Chief Manager to General Manager and interview notice was issued on 05.12.2019 and in the light of case of those

litigants before the Chhatisgarh High Court, direction was passed to consider the case of those litigants in the DPC being held for promotion to the

post of Grade-E-8. He submitted that thereafter, the respondents have taken decision to defer the DPC for promotion to the post of E-8 Grade in all

the disciplines including Civil Discipline, vide notice dated 10.12.2019. He further submitted that the petitioners preferred representations before the

respondents to consider their case. He submitted that the respondents have committed error in not granting retrospective promotion to the petitioners

from Grade E-6 to E-7, whereas retrospective promotion has been granted to similarly situated persons on 28.03.2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 leaving the

petitioners who were granted promotion only w.e.f 26.05.2017. He submitted that Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands that in respect of

any person equity be not denied. He submitted that promotion based on equal opportunity and seniority are rule. To buttress his argument, learned

counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment in the case of ""Ajit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Others"" reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 in

which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ""State shall not

deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws"". Article 16(1) issues a positive command that ""there shall be equality of

opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State"".

It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause

particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense ""equality of opportunity"" in matters of employment and appointment to

any office under the State. The word ""employment"" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above

the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of

consideration, a fundamental right to be ""considered"" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be ""considered"" for promotion. If a

person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be

considered"" for promotion, which is his personal right. ""Promotion"" based on equal opportunity and ""seniority"" attached to such promotion are facets

of fundamental right under Article 16(1)

Where promotional avenues are available, seniority becomes closely interlinked with promotion provided such a promotion is made after complying

with the principle of equal opportunity stated in Article 16(1). For example, if the promotion is by rule of ""seniority-cum-suitability"", the eligible seniors

at the basic level as per seniority fixed at that level and who are within the zone of consideration must be first considered for promotion and be

promoted if found suitable. In the promoted category they would have to count their seniority from the date of such promotion because they get

promotion through a process of equal opportunity. Similarly, if the promotion from the basic level is by selection or merit or any rule involving

consideration of merit, the senior who is eligible at the basic level has to be considered and if found meritorious in comparison with others, he will have

to be promoted first. If he is not found so meritorious, the next in order of seniority is to be considered and if found eligible and more meritorious than

the first person in the seniority list, he should be promoted. In either case, the person who is first promoted will normally count his seniority from the

date of such promotion. (There are minor modifications in various services in the matter of counting of seniority of such promotees but in all cases the

seniormost person at the basic level is to be considered first and then the others in the line of seniority.) That is how right to be considered for

promotion and the ""seniority"" attached to such promotion become important facets of the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 16(1). Right to be

considered for promotion is not a mere statutory right

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that delay in preparing the panel and the earlier rule was already there it was required to be

filled up in accordance with law un-amended rule. He further submitted that if rules provide then seats must be filled in that year or as per year wise

vacancy. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on judgement in the case of ""Y.V. Rangaiah and Others Vs. J.

Sreenivasa Rao and Others"" reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

The contention on behalf of the appellants herein is that by the time the list was prepared in May 1977 Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration

and Subordinate Service Rules was amended and the list prepared was in accordance with the rules then prevailing at the time of preparation, and

therefore there was nothing wrong with the preparation of the panel. It was further contended that the petitioners in the two representation petitions

having not challenged the validity of the amendment to Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules, it was not open to

them to challenge the list prepared in May, 1977 which is in accordance with the rules prevailing at that time.

Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find no force in either of the two contentions. Under the old rules a panel had to be prepared every

year in September. Accordingly, a panel should have been prepared in the year 1976 and transfer or promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II

should have been made out of that panel. In that event the petitioners in the two representation petitions who ranked higher than Respondents 3 to 15

would not have been deprived of their right of being considered for promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be

governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-

Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the State-wide basis and, therefore, there was no question of

challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the

posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.

For the reasons given above, we find no force in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. Both the sets of appeals, therefore, must fail.

They are accordingly dismissed. There is, however, no order as to costs.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no delay in claim of fundamental rights if 3rd party right not effected. To buttress

his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment in the case of "" Royal Orchid Hotels Limited & Another Vs. G. Jayarama

Reddy and Others"" reported in (2011) 10 SCC 608 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

The operative portion of the order passed in that case is extracted below:

In the result, we allow these writ petitions and quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and all

subsequent proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this aspect of the matter was earlier dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of ""Ramchadra Shankar, Deodhar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others"", reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317. He submitted that there is no

estoppel to fundamental rights. To buttress his argument, he relied on judgement in the case of ""Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn"" reported in

(1985) 3 SCC 545 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

The plea of estoppel is closely connected with the plea of waiver, the object of both being to ensure bona fides in day-to-day transactions. In

Basheshar Nath v. CIT2 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered the question whether the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution can

be waived. Two members of the Bench (Das, C.J. and Kapoor, J.) held that there can be no waiver of the fundamental right founded on Article 14 of

the Constitution. Two others (N.H. Bhagwati and Subba Rao, JJ.) held that not only could there be no waiver of the right conferred by Article 14, but

there could be no waiver of any other fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Constitution makes no distinction, according to

the learned Judges, between fundamental rights enacted for the benefit of an individual and those enacted in public interest or on grounds of public

policy.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on judgment in the case of ""Praveen Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others

(Civil Writ Petition No. 15798/2009) decided on 01.02.2010 and submitted that promotion has to be granted w.e.f the date of vacancy year, though

DPC happens in subsequent years. Para 26 & 27 of the said judgment are quoted here-in-below:-

Likewise, the arguments of Mr. Gurminder Singh have also no legs to stand. It may be logically correct that for the vacancies occuring from 1st

January to 31st December, 2006. the Committee may have to meet in the year 2007. But it would not follow that the 1st January of the year of the

meeting of the Committee would be considered as the cut off date for determining the age of eligibility of 54 years because it would again link the year

of meeting with eligibility of age. The other argument based upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramanand Prasad Singh's case

(supra) would also not require any detailed examination as it was a judgment rendered in respect of un-amended Regulation. Likewise, the judgment in

the case of G. Limbadri Rao (supra) would also not be relevant to decide the issue because it deals with the Regulations in respect of non-State Civil

Service Officers, which are known as the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. The last argument of Mr.

Gurminder Singh for adopting harmonious interpretation is wholly misplaced as we fail to understand what would be more harmonious interpretation of

Regulation 5(3). which after amendment has brought proximity to the age of eligibility with that of the occurrence of vacancy, de-linking the age of

eligibility from the month and year of meeting as was the situation operating in the pre-amened Regulation. Therefore, we do not find any substance in

the last submission made by Mr. Gurminder Singh.

For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds. The order of the Tribunal dated 4th September. 2009 (P-13) is hereby quashed. As a

consequence, the combined eligibility list of the State Civil Service Officers, dated 7th August, 2008 (P-4) and the notification dated 13th August. 2009

(P-14) in respect of so called select list for the year 2007 is also quashed. However, it is made clear that respondent Nos. 5 to 10 would continue to

work on their present postings till the fresh decision is taken by the Committee to make selection as per Regulation 3. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1

to 3 are directed to re-consider the names of all the eligible candidates by determining the age of 54 years as on 1st January. 2006 qua the vacancies

occurring from 1st January, 2006 to 31st December, 2006 by including the name of the petitioner. The needful shall be done within a period of one

month from today and the petitioner shall not be debarred from entering Indian Administrative Service merely because he would retire in February

2010, because all the proceedings of the Select Committee up to the issuance of impugned notification, has always remained subject to the result of

the OA. which was filed by the petitioner well in time.

Per Contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that so far as petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 5 are

concerned, they are posted at different places and this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction. He submitted that so far as petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are

concerned it was admitted that these petitioners are posted at Ranchi. He further submitted that the petitioners were considered by the DPC in their

meeting held between the period 6th April, 2017 to 16th May, 2017 for promotion to the post of Chief Manager in E-7 Grade in different discipline

including Civil discipline for the cut-off date 30.09.2013 and these cases were considered against 56 numbers of vacancy. He submitted that on the

basis of the recommendation made by the DPC, the petitioners were granted promotion to the post of Chief Manager (Civil) in E-7 Grade vide order

dated 26.05.2017 and the petitioners pursuant to such order of promotion had given their joining in the said promoted post without any protest or

demur. He submitted that after given their joining in the promoted post and worked in the said post for more than 3 and half years, the petitioners all of

a sudden by way of instant writ petition, are seeking relief for retrospective promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2013 which is not maintainable and the prayer is

misconceived. He submitted that the petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the post of E-8 Grade as they have not completed 03 years in E-7

Grade for the cut-off date i.e. May, 2020. According to Mr. Das DPC meeting for promotion from E-6 to E-7 Grade are based on New Promotion

Guidelines dated 03/05.05.2011 for the cut-off 30.09.2010 considering vacancies up to November, 2012, had been done on 07.03.2013. The promotion

orders were issued in April, 2013 and as far as Civil discipline is concerned, against 65 vacancies promotion orders were issued on 01.04.2013. He

submitted that the petitioners were considered by the DPC however, they were not recommended for promotion as their merit position is beyond the

number of vacancy position. The petitioners' global seniority position at the time of DPC was beyond 65. He further submitted that so far as

retrospective application of new promotion policy dated 03/05.05.2011 for the cut-off 30.09.2010 is concerned, few executives approached the

respective Hon'ble High Courts. He submitted that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 12002 (W) of 2013 (Anil Kumar Joshi Vs. CIL) vide

judgement dated 26.09.2014 quashed the Promotion Policy dated 03/05.05.2011 as well as the consequential promotion order dated 02.04.2013 and

also prohibited the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned promotion policy and it has also been directed to fill up the

vacancies arising in the year, 2010 on the basis of Promotion Policy governing the field when the vacancies arose. He submitted that the respondents-

CIL preferred appeal before the Calcutta High Court however, it was decided to implement the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.09.2014 to

the extent of filling vacancies occurring as on 30.09.2010 by applying promotion policy in vogue as on 30.09.2010 and to recall orders of promotion of

156 executives of various disciplines. Pursuant to recommendation of DPC meeting dated 03.09.2015, promotion orders were issued on 24.02.2016

and 25.02.2016 and 156 executives of various disciplines who could not have been promoted had the earlier Policy as existing prior to 03/05.05.2011

been applied, were revered to E-6 Grade vide order dated 24.02.2016. These reverted executives filed number of applications/appeals before the

Hon'ble High Court ( AST 83 of 2016) against judgment and order dated 26.09.2014 and under order dated 03.03.2016, the Hon'ble Calcutta High

Court in AST 83 of 2016 directed to maintain status quo and the said AST 83 of 2016 was disposed of on 12.01.2017 with the following directions:

We are of the opinion that the directions to set aside the said promotion policy and to prohibit CIL from giving effect or further effect to the said

promotion policy are not sustainable in law and the said directions are accordingly set aside.

............................................................................................................ ............

In view of the submission that CIL is willing to grant promotion to all the writ petitioners, subject to DPC, as well as to the private respondents and

the applicants who have preferred the application for leave to appeal from E6 to E7 grade, the equities also stand balanced among the parties.

Depending on their success in the DPC the writ petitioners will naturally be senior to the appellants in E7 grade.

............................................................................................................ ................

For the reasons discussed above, all the appeals are dismissed and the judgement dated 26th September, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge

in WP 12002(W) of 2013 is affirmed subject to the directions contained in paragraph 3 hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that to put an end to the litigations, the competent authority decided to give notional

promotion afresh w.e.f. 2013 to E7 Grade Executives who were reverted vide order dated 24th February, 2016 in compliance of order of the Calcutta

High Court. He submitted that there is no fundamental right of promotion and only promotion can be considered. He submitted that petitioners are

trying to make out case of parity which is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. He submitted that DPC was held on 07.03.2013 for 65

vacancies only in Civil discipline and considered all 202 eligible candidates including the petitioners. He submitted that in the Merit Panel, the position

of the petitioners was much below beyond the number of vacancies as such they were not promoted vide order dated 01.04.2013. He submitted that

some of the persons have been granted retrospective promotion in view of order of the Calcutta High Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for

the respondents submitted that the case of the petitioners is fit to be rejected.

By way of reply, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in view of Rule, vacancies are

required to be filled in that year or as per year wise vacancy but that was not done as there are laches on the part of the respondents. DPC was not

held till 2014-17. He submitted that in view of delay, petitioners are entitled to be considered promotion w.e.f. 2014. He submitted that the case of the

petitioners is identical to the case of ""Praveen Kumar"" (supra).

In view of above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has ventured to go through the materials

on record. It is an admitted position that DPC was not conducted earlier in terms of Common Coal Cadre Rules. The learned Single Judge of the

Calcutta High Court quashed the promotion order pursuant thereto the said promotion order was recalled by the respondents vide order dated

24.02.2016. Subsequently, similarly situated persons have been provided promotion retrospectively whereas the petitioners have been left out.

Pursuant to earlier cancellation of promotion order in the light of order of the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court new fresh consideration for the

year 2017 was being done and it was requirement that the candidates should be treated on same footings, which has not been done in the case in

hand. It is an admitted position that DPC was not held in terms of Common Coal Cadre Rules. It has been held in the case of ""Y.V. Rangaiah

(supra) that if rules provide then seats must be filled in that year or as per year wise vacancy. In the case in hand, Rules 2011 was quashed by the

Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court however the Rule was restored by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. Thus already considered in

the year 2017, the said Rule was invoked when the case of the petitioners was considered. Right to consideration for promotion is a fundamental right

as it has been held in the case of ""Ajit Singh (supra). So far as fundamental right is concerned, when the 3rd party right is not effected as has been

discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ""Royal Orchid Hotels Limited "" (supra) and "" Ramchandra Shankar, Deodhar"" (supra). There is no

estoppel to fundamental rights as has been held in ""Olga Telis"" (supra). Thus, the case of the petitioners is required to be considered in the light of

similarly situated persons who have been granted promotion retrospectively as discussed above. The ground of territorial jurisdiction taken by Mr. Das

with regard to the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 5 are concerned, it can be safely said that part of cause of action is within the territorial jurisdiction of this

Court in the light Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India as it is admitted fact that as admitted by Mr. Das so far as rest two petitioners are

concerned, are posted at Ranchi. In that view of the matter, part of cause of action is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This ground is not

accepted by the Court. It is well settled proposition of the law that promotion process is applicable in the manner law in force on date on which

consideration for promotion takes place or date on which vacancy arose. In this regard reference may be made to the case of ""State of Tripura v.

Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty"" reported in (2017) 3 SCC 646, in which at para 9 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, ""rules in force on the date"" the

consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when

they arose. As against the case of total exclusion and absolute deprivation of a chance to be considered as in Deepak Agarwal3 in the instant case

certain additional posts have been included in the feeder cadre, thereby expanding the zone of consideration. It is not as if the writ petitioners or

similarly situated candidates were totally excluded. At best, they now had to compete with some more candidates. In any case, since there was no

accrued right nor was there any mandate that vacancies must be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arose, the State

was well within its rights to stipulate that the vacancies be filled in accordance with the Rules as amended. Secondly, the process to amend the Rules

had also begun well before the Notification dated 24-11-2011.

In the case of ""S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar and others"" reported in (2007) 10 SCC 513 the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 13 observed as

under:-

Although a person has no fundamental right of promotion in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, he has a fundamental right to be

considered therefor. An effective and meaningful consideration is postulated thereby. The terms and conditions of service of an employee including his

right to be considered for promotion indisputably are governed by the rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of

India.

For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition succeeds. Accordingly, the respondents-Coal India is directed to reconsider the name of the

petitioners for grant of retrospective promotion as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons. The needful shall be done within a period of

8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.