Devendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs Coal India Limited

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2024:CGHC:39496

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 331 of 2016

¶5

1 - Devendra Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late R.P. Shrivastava, Aged About 54 Years Sr. P.A., South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, P.O. South Jhagrakhand, District Koriya Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh,

¶6

2 - G V N Sharma, S/o Late G.S. Rayudu, Aged About 55 Years Sr. P.A., South Eastern Coalfields Limited Gevra Area, S E C L, P.O. Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Coal India Limited Through Chairman- Cum Managing Director, Coal Bhawan Netaji Subhash Marg, Kolkata- 700156 West Bengal

¶10

2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman-CumManaging Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495006 3 - Director Personnel, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495006 4 - General Manager, Personnel/Recruitment Coal India Limited Coal Bhawan Premises No. 4 MAR Plot No. A F - 111, AA- 111, A A- 1A, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata- 700156 West Bengal.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner :- Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. K.K. Shrivastava, Advocate

¶14

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶15

04.10.2024

¶16

1. This writ petition is directed against notification dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4, for selection/promotion from non-executive cadre to

¶17

2 / 6

¶18

executive cadre in various disciplines including the post of Private Secretary and is also seeking direction to the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion against the E-2 Executive Grade as they are eligible, from the date of promotion of their juniors.

¶19

2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that earlier a writ petition bearing No.6017/1998 (Mokarram Khan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) was filed before this Court by the petitioners, and the same was decided vide order dated 05.01.2006 (Annexure P/6), whereby the respondents therein were directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. The aforesaid order dated 05.01.2006 was challenged by the SECL by filing an SLP (Civil) No.9831/2006 (Coal India Ltd. & Ors. v. Mokarram Khan & Ors.) before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.09.2007 (Annexure P/7) directed that all eligible candidates will be considered for the aforesaid posts in accordance with law and, thereby, modifying the judgment of the High Court to that extent. Thereafter, in compliance with order dated 18.09.2007, the vacancies were notified in 2008 & again in 2015 for selection/promotion of departmental non-executive employees to executive cadre

¶20

3 / 6

¶21

in various posts and, accordingly, written test/interview were conducted, however, the petitioners have not participated in the written tests held in 2008 & 2015 (Annexure P/1) and the recruitment process has already been completed, as such, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

3. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the order of the Supreme Court, the case of the petitioners have not been considered and the impugned notification vide Annexure P/1 has been issued, as such, the appropriate writ may be issued.

¶23

4. Mr. K.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioners did not apply and participate in the selection/promotion process held vide notification dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P/1), therefore, their case have not been considered, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

6. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioners were working as Senior Personal Assistants and appeared in the

¶26

4 / 6

¶27

written test conducted by the respondents for promotion to the post of Executive Cadre as Private Secretary in E-2 Grade in the year 1996-1997. Pursuant to the written test, the petitioners were selected and interview conducted by the respondents and put in the panel for the purpose of posting as Private Secretary in E-2 Grade in December, 1997. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing No.6017/1998 before this Court, against the respondents to post the petitioners as Private Secretary in E-2 Grade pursuant to selection made in the year 199697, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2006 (Annexure P/6), directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and take a decision in line with the decision rendered by the Jharkhand High Court in CWJC No.3045 of 1998. Against which, the Coal India preferred an SLP (Civil) No.9831/2006 (Coal India Ltd. & Ors. v. Mokarram Khan & Ors.), which was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.09.2007 and held as under:-

¶28

“Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for Coal India Limited states that there are 40 vacancies available in E2 grade which have now been notified by Coal India and he further submits that all eligible candidates will be considered for the aforesaid posts in accordance with law.

¶29

5 / 6

¶30

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners, nothing survives to be adjudicated in these petitions. We, accordingly, dispose of these special leave petitions in the above terms and modify the impugned order of the High Court to that extent. No order as to costs.”

¶31

7. The case of the petitioners is that their cases were not considered despite the order of the Supreme Court, and fresh notification was issued. However, it is the case of the SECL that fresh recruitment process was initiated pursuant to order of the Supreme Court, but the petitioners did not participate and chose to file the writ petition and since, the recruitment process have already been completed, therefore, they are not entitled for selection/promotion.

¶32

8. In the earlier round, this Court had directed the respondents therein, to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law, which was later modified by the order of the Supreme Court, on the statement of the learned counsel for the Coal India that all eligible candidates will be considered for the aforesaid posts in accordance with law. Furthermore, the order of the Supreme Court was passed on 18.09.2007, whereas, this writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 19.01.2016. Moreover, the petitioners have also not participated in the

¶33

6 / 6

¶34

recruitment process initiated for the subject post vide the impugned notification dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P/1), and the recruitment process has already been completed, in which they have neither participated nor challenged the appointment of the selected candidates for the post of Private Secretary, which they are claiming.

¶35

9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as well as on merits, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶36

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶37

@d!t!

Devendra Kumar Shrivastava v. Coal India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Shrivastava v. Coal India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khunuram Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Ku. Archana Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Kamal Kishor Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shashikanta Bharadwaj Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Kaleshwar Ram Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh