[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Gond vs The Central Coalfields Limited on 28 April, 2025
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
2025: JHHC:12921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 7171 of 2023
1. Dharmendra Kumar Gond, Son of Harigovind Gond, aged about 29 years
Resident of Balua Gauri, P.O-Ropam Chhapra P.S-LAR, District-Deoria,
Uttar Pradesh
2. Yogesh Kumar Meena, son of Jagdish Prashad Meena, aged about 28
years, resident of Village Dharampur P.O-Dharampur, P.S-Dharampur,
District Dausa, Rajasthan
3. Ramavath Hamji, Son of laxma, aged about 21 years, Resident of
Gattumidha Thanda Thirumalagiri, Sagar P.O-Rekulagada P.S
Thirumalagiri, District-Nalgonda, Telangana
4. Mahendra Kumar, son of Surgyan singh, aged about 27 years, resident of
village-Nithar, P.O-Nithar, P.S-Bhusawar, District:-Bharatpur, Rajasthan
5. Yogesh Kumar Meena aged about 23 years, son of Dharam singh meena,
Resident of village kalakhana P.O-Palanpur P.S-Hindaun city, District-
karauli, Rajasthan
6. Archana Gond, Daughter of Ganesh Kumar Gond, aged about 27 years,
Resident Of-Village-Khairatiya, P.O-Gauri Bazar P.S-Gauri Bazaarm
District Deoria, Uttar Pradesh
7. Raj Kumar Meena, son of Amar Singh Meena, aged about 27 years,
Resident of village Hukmi Ka Pura, P.O- Mandawara P.S-Hindaun city,
District Karauli, Rajasthan
8. Rakesh Kumar, son of Badri Narayan Prasad, aged about 27 years, Resident
of Village Pranpur, P.O-Karammar, P.S-khejuri, District Ballia Uttar Pradesh
9. Bhukya shirisha, Daughter of Bhukya Venkateshwarlu, aged about 26
years, Resident Of D.A 583/Near Nehru street / Babucamp, Kothagudem,
P.O. & P.S- Chunchupally District Bhadradri kothagudem, Telangana
10. Naresh Kumar Meena, son of Raghuvar Dayal Meena, aged about 30
resident of Karanpura, P.O & P.S Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan
11. Sourav Mandal, son of Bipul mandal, aged about 31 years, resident of
Alaipur, P.0-Alaipur, P.S-Chakdaha, District- Nadia, West Bengal
12. Shailendra kumar, Son of Ram Naresh, aged about 32 years, Resident of
village Suttha hardo, P.O-Sutthahardo, P.S-Gadaganj, District-Raebareli,
Uttar Pradesh
13. Gaurav Kumar Meena, son of Bharat Lal Meena, aged about 29 years,
Resident of vill Dholeta P.O-Dholeta, P.S- Nadoti District- Karauli, State
Rajasthan
14. Kiran Kumar Mridha, aged about 33 years, son of Krishna Kanta Mridha,
Resident of Coopers Camp, Ward No. 1, P.O. Coopers Camp, P.S. Ranaghat,
District Nadia, West Bengal
15. Rameshwar Mahali, son of Late Ashok Mahali, aged about 32 years,
Resident Of Village latia, P.O-Badia, P.S- Mosabani District-East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand
2
16. Partha Sarathi Mondal, son of Tapan Chandra Mondal, aged about 28 years,
resident of Kalyani Taltalta Ward no 5 (plot no 421) P.O-Kalyani, P.S-
kalyani, District -Nadia, West Bengal
17. Saurabh Kumar Meena, son of Dhansi Ram Meena, aged about 26 years,
resident of village Anantpura, P.O-Bhanakpura, P.S -Todabhim, Distict
Karauli Rajasthan
18. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, son of Babu Ram Yadav, aged about 26 years,,,
Resident of Village Chakarapost, P.O-Tanda Kalan, P.S-Balua, District-
Chandauli (Uttar Pradesh)
19. Rohitash Meena, Son of Malla Ram Meena aged about 30 years, Resident
of VPO Neemla Pandu ki Dhani, P.O & P.S Telha, District-Alwar, Rajasthan
20. Sandeep Kumar Gautam Son of Jagram, aged about 27 years Resident of
Mq - 440, Sector-B Dudhichua colony, P.O -Dudhichua, P.S-Jayant, District-
Singraulli, Madhya Pradesh --- --- Petitioners
Versus
1. The Central Coalfields Limited, Through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, having its office at Darbhanga, P.O-G.P.O, P.S -Kotwali Ranchi;
District, Ranchi
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfield Ltd having its office at
Darbhanga House, P.O- G.P.O, P.S-Kotwali District: Ranchi
3. The General Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd having its office
at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O-G.P.O, P.S Kotwali, District Ranchi
4. The General Manager (P & IR) Central Coalfields Ltd, having its office at
Darbhanga House Ranchi, P.O-G.P.O, P.S-Kotwali, District Ranchi
5. The General Manager (HRD), Central Coalfields Ltd, having its office at
Darbhanga House, Ranchi P.O-G.P.O, P.S-Kotwali, District Ranchi
--- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
—
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Kr. Tandon, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
---
Reserved on: 30.01.2025 Pronounced on: 28.04.2025
----
Ambuj Nath, J: Petitioners have filed this writ application for issuance of an appropriate
writ (s) / direction (s) in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent
authorities to allow them to participate in the further selection process as
prescribed in Advertisement dated 28.03.2023. Petitioners have further prayed
for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to determine their eligibility on
all aspects, considering the Note-B of the Advertisement dated 28.03.2023,
wherein the petitioners claim to possess the necessary qualification that meet
the eligibility criteria outlined in the advertisement. They have finally prayed
3
for issuance of a direction upon the Respondent authorities to release the final
selection list based on the previously published provisional merit list and to
issue appointment letter in their favour.
2. Case of the petitioners is that vide Employment Notice Ref. No.
CCL/Recruitment Adv-Stat/032023/63 was published by the Respondent
Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) on 28.03.2023, application was invited for
filling up the vacancies of various posts including the post of Assistant
Foreman (Electrical). The Advertisement / Employment Notice was published
under Special Recruitment Drive for SC/ST/OBC candidates.
4. It is the case of the petitioners, as per the advertisement, minimum
qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) was:-
a. Matriculate or equivalent examination from any recognized Board of
Examination with recognized Diploma in Electrical Engineer (three years
course)
b. Electrical Supervisorship Certificate valid for mines.
The petitioners who were possessing the necessary qualification,
submitted their applications for the prescribed post of Assistant Foreman
(Electrical) and pursuant to their submission, admit cards were issued to the
petitioners. Selection on the aforesaid post was to be based on the performance
in the Computer Based Test (CBT). As per Clause 8 (General Instruction) Sub
Clause 15, only those candidates who met the criteria outlined in the
advertisement were to be invited for the Computer Based Test. The petitioners
appeared in the Computer Based Test Examination conducted on 05.05.2023.
Subsequently, list of candidates who were provisionally selected for the post of
Assistant Foreman (Electrical) in CCL was published and the petitioners name
appeared at Serial No. 5, 17, 38, 30, 1, 29, 59, 20, 44, 77, 10, 57, 43 and 26 (In
ST Category) and at Serial No. 15, 12, 22 and 6 (in SC Category) and at Serial
No. 7 (in OBC Category).
5. After the issuance of provisional list, notice was issued on the
website of CCL for document verification of the selected candidates between
the period 31.07.2023 to 03.08.2023. The petitioners duly presented themselves
before the authorities providing their original documents for verification on the
specified dates. The petitioners are still waiting communication from the
Respondent authorities regarding their examination, but to no avail. It is their
case that some other candidates were called for medical examination, post
4
verification of documents. As per the petitioners, they are having requisite
qualification for the post of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) and having the
Electrical Supervisory Certificate from their respective States, but their
candidature is not being considered. Accordingly, this writ application has been
filed with a prayer to direct the Respondent authorities to issue appointment
letters to the petitioners based on their personal preferences and desires.
6. Respondent Central Coalfields Limited have filed counter affidavit,
admitting that the Employment Notice vide Reference No. CCL/Recruitment
Adv-Stat/032023/63 dated 28.03.2023 under the special recruitment drive to fill
up the backlog vacancies of SC/ST/OBC (NCL) categories was published by
the Respondent authorities in National and Local Newspapers, Employment
Exchanges and on the Company Website inviting application for 107 posts of
Assistant Foreman (Electrical) along with three other posts for a total 330
numbers of vacancies. The minimum essential qualification as required for
employment on the post of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) as on 19.04.2023
was as under:-
a. Matriculate or equivalent examination from any recognized Board of
Examination with recognized Diploma in Electrical Engineer (three years
course)
b. Electrical Supervisorship Certificate valid for mines.
7. They have admitted that Computer Based Test for 107 numbers of
vacancies of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) along with three other posts was
held on 05.05.2023 in different test Centers in Ranchi, Dhanbad, Bokaro,
Hazaribag and Jamshedpur. According to the Respondents, the petitioners had
applied for the post of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) and while applying
online, they had confirmed that they are in possession of the Minimum
Essential Qualification, as prescribed in the advertisement. On the basis of
declaration, they were allowed to appear in the Computer Based Test. The
petitioners were found placed in the merit list for the said post and the merit list
of the said test was published on 15.07.2023. Accordingly, vide schedule dated
19.07.2023, the petitioners were directed to produce Matriculation Certificate
and Marks Sheet along with other statutory certificates like Electrical
Supervisorship Certificate, etc. valid for mines and caste certificate.
8. It is the case of the Respondents that the petitioners at the time of
document verification, failed to produce requisite Supervisorship Certificate, as
5
required in the Employment Notice. In such circumstances, despite having their
names enlisted in the merit list published on 15.07.2023, they could not be
considered for appointment as they did not meet the minimum essential
qualification as stated in the Employment Notice. It has further been stated that
the Respondent authorities have offered appointment in order of merit to other
successful candidates in the published merit list who were in possession of the
minimum essential qualification on the cut-off date. It has been stated that the
petitioners did not fulfill the requisite qualification and do not possess desired
Electrical Supervisorship Certificate valid for mines.
9. From perusal of the Advertisement dated 28.03.2023, application for the
post of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) was invited from only those candidates
who were having the following qualification.
a. Matriculate or equivalent examination from any recognized Board of
Examination with recognized Diploma in Electrical Engineer (three years
course)
b. Electrical Supervisorship Certificate valid for mines.
10. While publishing the list of successful candidates for Assistant Foreman
(Electrical), the Respondent Central Coalfields Limited had stipulated that final
selection of the candidates will be subject to successful verification /
submission of requisite certificate / documents and thereafter, if they are found
fit in the medical examination conducted by the Medical Board, final list would
be published. It has also been stated that if at any stage of selection, it is found
that the candidates do not possess requisite certificates, documents, etc., or
have violated or do not fulfill any provision / criteria in the Employment Notice
no. 63 dated 28.03.2023, then their candidates will be cancelled with immediate
effect.
11. From perusal of the certificates annexed by the petitioners regarding
their eligibility of possessing Electrical Supervisorship Certificate which was
valid for mines, it appears that the certificate which was produced by the
petitioners was to the effect that they had the certificate of Electrical
Supervisorship. Certificate do not reveal that they were having necessary
experience of Electrical Supervisorship which was valid for mines.
12. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Respondents, it has been mentioned that there was Joint Bipartite Agreement
for the Coal Industry (JBCCI) established by the Coal India Limited (CIL) of
6
which CCL was also a signatory. Clause-2 of Annexure-XVIII-2 (Modified
Promotional Channel / Cadre Scheme of E & M Personnel Assistant Foreman)
of the said Agreement explicitly delineates the eligibility criteria for the
position of Assistant Foreman / Chargeman, which are as follows:
Designation Basic Pay Eligibility Mode
Minimum Minimum
Qualification Experience
(Education / Tech)
Asst Foreman Grade C Diploma in Mech or After successful Confirmation /
/ Chargeman 31852.56/- Electrical Engineering completion of 2 section / Trade
years training Test / as per
as Assistant Foot Note
Foreman /
Chargeman
(Trainee)
They have also stated that in Note 5 of the aforesaid Annexure, it has
been clearly mentioned that Fresh recruitment may be done in T & S Grade ‘C’
having Diploma in Electrical Engineering, as required in cadre scheme. That
merely perusal of the aforementioned clause read with clause 2 clearly states
that there is no requirement of Electrical Supervisory Certificate valid for
mines.
13. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Respondents, submitted
that as per the advertisement, there was requirement of Electrical
Supervisorship Certificate valid for mines. Petitioners were very much aware of
this requirement and they had applied for their recruitment on the post of
Assistant Foreman (Electrical) on the basis of this advertisement and as such,
after participating in the examination process, they cannot claim that requisite
qualification in the advertisement was contrary to the Joint Bipartite Agreement
Committee for the Coal Industry (JBCCI) established by the Coal India Limited
(CIL) of which CCL was also a signatory.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Karunesh Kumar
reported in [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under:
“21. A candidate who has participated in the selection process
adopted Ander the 2015 Rules is estopped and has acquiesced
himself from questioning it thereafter, as held by this Court in the
case of Anupal Singh (supra):
“55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents
cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12-10-2014 and
7the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that
after the revised Notification dated 12-10-2014, the private
respondents participated in the interview without protest and only
after the result was announced and finding that they were not
selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised
Notification dated 12-10-2014 and the private respondents are
estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law
that a person having consciously participated in the interview
cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.
56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged
by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken
the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds
himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3
SCC 486: 1995 SCC (L&S) 712], it was held as under: (SCC p.
493, para 9)
“9…. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview
conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who
interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents
concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves
selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find
themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their
combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they
have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate
takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only
because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he
cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of
interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly
constituted.”
57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala ((2006) 6 SCC 395: 2006
SCC (L&S) 1345), it was held as under: (SCC p. 426, para 73)
73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in
this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn
round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that
the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper.
58. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100:
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792], it was held as under: (SCC p. 107, para
19)
“19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla
[(2002) 6 SCC 127: 2002 SCC (L&S) 830]….
It was further observed: (SCC p. 149, para 34)
34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by
conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to
be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview
and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is
not “palatable” to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently
contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some
lacuna in the process.”
59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz
Ali Sheikh ((2008) 4 SCC 619: (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 9] wherein, it
was held as under: (SCC pp. 645-46, para 59)
59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful
candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There
are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general
rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest
judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC
100: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792)… The Court also referred to the
judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986
Supp SCC 285 1986 SCC (L&S) 644), where it has been held
8
specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination
without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in
the examination, the question of entertaining the petition
challenging such examination would not arise.’
23. The aforesaid principle of law applies to the present case. It is
not open to the candidate to contend to the contrary so that he can
have the best of both sets of rules. Not only is there a difference in
the mode of selection, but also in the constitution of recruiting
authority as well. It is pertinent to note, that under the 2015 Rules,
there is no such procedure for preparing a waiting-list, as the
Respondents seek to contend.
26. Now we shall come to the question of repugnancy between the
two Rules, namely, the 1978 Rules, being a special Rule, and the
general Rule introduced in the year 2015. The 1978 Rules do not
exist in the statute once the 2015 Rules came into being. By the
introduction of the 2014 Act, the legislature in its wisdom assigned
the role of filling up the Class ‘C’ posts to the Commission. We
have no difficulty in appreciating the legal contentions raised by
the Respondents, however, the decisions rendered do not have any
application, considering the inconsistency between the two sets of
rules. As we have already held the two sets of rules to be
inconsistent with each other, it is clear that the later rules, even
though general in nature, will govern the field. On this aspect, we
wish to quote with profit the decision of this Court in the case of
Ajoy Kumar Banerjee (supra).
“38. As mentioned hereinbefore if the scheme was held to
be valid, then the question what is the general law and what is the
special law and which law in case of conflict would prevail would
have arisen and that would have necessitated the application of the
principle “Generalia specialibus non derogant”. The general rule to
be followed in case of conflict between two statutes is that the later
abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would
yield to a later general law, if either of the two following
conditions is satisfied:
(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.
(ii) There is some express reference in the later to the
earlier enactment
If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law,
even though general, would prevail.
39. From the text and the decisions, four tests are deducible
and these are: (i) The Legislature has the undoubted right to alter a
law already promulgated through subsequent legislation, (ii) A
special law may be altered, abrogated or repealed by a later general
law by an express provisions, (iii) A later general law will override
a prior special law if the two are so repugnant to each other that
they cannot co-exist even though no express provision in that
behalf is found in the general law, and (iv) It is only in the absence
of a provision to the contrary and of a clear inconsistency that a
special law will remain wholly unaffected by a later general law.
See in this connection, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes,
Twelfth Edition, pages 196-198.”
27. Merely because the Appellant sought to amend the 1978 Rules
subsequently in 2016, it cannot be presumed that the 1978 Rules
particularly with respect to Rule 15 continue to exist in the statute
book. considering the fact that the 2016 amendment was only
clarificatory in nature. We may hasten to add that both the Rules
were made in the exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India.
9
31. We do not wish to reiterate the situation when two Rules are
sought to be pitted against each other, as we find no such
repugnancy that has arisen. A court of law is expected to reconcile
the rules, and therefore, not to foresee or presume conflicts, if any.”
Petitioners have relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of Ashish Kumar versus State of U.P. reported in [(2018)
3 SCC 55], relying upon its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Malik
Mazhar Sultan versus U.P. Public Service Commissioner reported in [(2006)
9 SCC 507], wherein it was held as under:
“27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the
statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus,
looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the
appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the
post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well
settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the
statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In
this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in
Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission [Malik
Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC
507: 2006 SCC (L&S) 1870]. Para 21 of the judgment lays down
the above proposition which is to the following effect: (SCC p.
512)
“21. The present controversy has arisen as the
advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were
within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within
age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates
were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment
to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and
the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules
and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible
according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only
if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the
advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it
issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on
basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn
upon the interpretation of the Rules.”
[Emphasis supplied]
14. Petitioners were very much aware of the Joint Bipartite Agreement for
the Coal Industry (JBCCI) established by the Coal India Limited (CIL) of
which CCL was also a signatory, which clearly stipulated the requirement of
minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Foreman /
Chargeman would be Diploma in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and
after successful completion of two years training as Assistant Foreman /
Chargeman (Trainee). But at the time of applying for the aforesaid post,
petitioners did not raise any objection regarding their qualification which was
10
required for the said post in the Employment Notice Ref. No. CCL/Recruitment
Adv-Stat/032023/63.
15. It is settled principle of law that once a candidate has participated in the
selection process after accepting the eligibility criteria mentioned in the
advertisement, such candidate is stopped and acquiesced from questioning
thereafter.
16. In view of the discussion made above, it is apparent that the petitioners
did not possess the required qualification for their appointment on the post of
Assistant Foreman (Electrical). Accordingly, this writ application stands
dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
Uploaded
[ad_2]
Source link