THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 44007 of 2022
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in issuing the Corrigendum Ref.No.CRP/PER/R/2022/1531, dated 25.11.2022 and Corrigendum Ref.No.CRP/PER/R/2022/1542, dated 26.11.2022, as illegal, discriminatory, contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to conduct the recruitment for filling up of vacancies of Under Manager E-2 Grade (Internal) strictly in accordance with the rules framed by the Board of Directors in the Executive Promotion Rules, 1998 as amended in 2014 and as prescribed in the Circular Ref.No.CRP/PER/R/2022/806, dated 24.06.2022 and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent Corporation has issued Circular Ref.No.CRP/PER/R/2022/806, dated 24.06.2022 for filling up various vacancies including Under Manager (E-2 Grade) Internal as per rules. Accordingly, call letters were 2 PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022 issued vide Letter Ref.No.CRP/PER/R/2022/1509, dated 18.11.2022. According to the Circular dated 24.06.2022, the qualification/service prescribed was (i) Second Class Mine Manager's Certificate of Competency (Coal) issued by the Director General of Mines Safety; and (ii) working as Head Overman/Overman/Mine Surveyor who have put in five years or more service in A1/A/B Grades in Supervisory Cadre or E- 1/E2 Grade of Executive Cadre. It is submitted that subsequently, the respondents have issued Corrigendum letters dated 25.11.2022 and 26.11.2022 by including the Mining Sirdar and Senior Mining Sirdar also respectively as eligible for submitting their applications and being considered for promotion. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide interim orders dated 08.12.2022, the respondents were permitted to proceed with the recruitment process of the said vacancies, but the result of the same was subject to outcome of the writ petition. Accordingly, the examination was conducted and the results are awaited and are thus seeking a direction to announce the results and to complete the recruitment process. 3
PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the rules as on the date of issuing the circular notifying the vacancies, have to be followed and cannot be changed until the recruitment process is completed. He submitted that rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun and the respondents herein have changed the service conditions/qualifications without amending the service rules. He submitted that the service conditions can be amended only by the Singareni Board and not by the Group of Directors.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Board of Governors consists of the Directors from Central Government as well as State Government and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited and without the ascent of all the Directors, the service conditions could not have been amended. Therefore, he submits that the candidature of the candidates who possessed a service conditions as mentioned in the circular dated 24.06.2022 alone should be considered and the result should be announced and the recruitment process should be completed.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, however relied upon the averments made in the 4 PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022 counter affidavit and submitted that the Chairman and Managing Director has been delegated with the powers of recruitment and further that after issuance of circular, representations have been received from the Trade Unions to include a combined service as well and therefore, a resolution was passed to include the said services i.e., Mining Sirdar and Senior Mining Sirdar as well and the Corrigendum were accordingly issued. He submitted that the Corrigendum is only in respect of the service conditions and not the minimum qualification required and therefore, there was no illegality or irregularity in issuing of the Corrigendum or change in rules of the game after the circular has been issued.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to the delegation of Powers to C & M.D and Functional Directors as on 26.12.2018, available on the website, to submit that the functions of framing of recruitment service, conduct and other Rules have not delegated to the Chairman by the Board of Directors. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another 1 and submitted that the 1 (2008) 3 SCC 512 5 PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022 selection criteria has been prescribed in advance and rules of game cannot be changed afterwards. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishnu Biswas and Others Vs. Union of India and Others 2, for the very same proposition that rules of game cannot be changed after the selection process has been initiated.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the circular was issued for recruitment of Under Manager E-2 Grade (Internal) on 24.06.2022. The qualifications as per the said circular are the Second Class Mine Manager's Certificate of Competency (Coal) issued by the Director General of Mines Safety. The candidates who are eligible to participate in the recruitment process are those who are working as Head Overman/Overman/Mine Surveyor who have put in five years or more service in A1/A/B Grades in Supervisory Cadre or E-1/E2 Grade of Executive Cadre. The Corrigendum letters dated 25.11.2022 and 26.11.2022, modify the category of employees who are eligible for participating in the recruitment process. The basic qualification of holding a Second Class Mine Manager's 2 (2014) 5 SCC 774 6 PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022 Certificate of Competency (Coal) issued by the Director General of Mines Safety continues. By the modification, the respondents have included the Mining Sirdar and Senior Mining Sirdar, who have put in five years or more service in A1/A/B Grades in Supervisory Cadre or E-1/E2 Grade of Executive Cadre. This Court finds that by the above amendments, the respondents have only expanded the category of employees who can participate in the recruitment process, but have not modified the minimum qualification required. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the service rules or service conditions of the circular have not been changed after issuance of the circular. As long as minimum qualification remains the same and minimum number of years to be put in by a candidate of a particular rank remains the same, this Court is of the opinion there is no change of service conditions. The expansion of the cadre for participating in the examination would not amount to change in the rules of game after the game has started. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.
9. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are distinguishable on facts and hence are not applicable to the case before this Court. 7
PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022
(i) In the case of Bishnu Biswas and Others (cited supra), there was a variation of recruitment rules/ advertisement midway into selection process. The post of appointment of Group-D staff was taken up and thereafter the recruitment rules were amended providing 50 marks for written examination while 50 marks were allocated for interview. The Court observed that the rules of game have been changed after conducting the written test and not admittedly at the stage of initiation of the selection process and thus, allocation of equal marks for interview cannot be sustained. It was further observed that the manner in which marks were awarded to the candidates in the interview indicated lack of transparency. It was in these circumstances that the Court has held that the rules of the game have been changed after conducting the written test and admittedly not at the stage of initiation of selection process.
(ii) In the case Writ Appeal i.e., W.A.No.138 of 2017, the Division Bench of this Court was considering the case where after conducting the written test, interviews for non-executive posts such as Junior Mazdoor Grade was conducted much against the instructions received from the Union of India. It was in these circumstances, that the Division Bench has held that 8 PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022 the selection process cannot be changed midstream and the amended rules cannot be applied to employment notifications issued prior to the date on which the amended rules came into force.
(iii) In the case of A.Manjusree (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the minimum qualifying marks have to be prescribed both for written examination and interview before conducting the examination and not after the examination.
(iv) In the case of Assam Public Service Commission and Others Vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma and Others 3, there was a change of norms of selection for an ongoing process midstream in course of recruitment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a candidate has a limited right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement and he cannot be deprived of that limited right by amendment of the rules during the pendency of the selection, unless the rules have to be applied retrospectively.
3 2019 LawSuit (SC) 1918 9 PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022
10. All the above judgments are to the effect that the rules have to be prescribed before conducting the written examination and not midstream or after conducting the written examination.
11. In this case, the minimum qualification or nature of the examination has not been changed. It is only the category of persons who can participate in the recruitment process which has been expanded. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the candidates who were eligible to write examination by virtue of the circular dated 24.06.2022 and by subsequent amendment dated 25.11.2022.
12. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 20.09.2023 bak 10 PMD,J W.P.No. 44007 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.No. 44007 of 2022 Dated: 20.09.2023 bak