Narendra Kumar Tripathi vs Union Of India & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2411 Del

                                                     UNREPORTABLE


*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                           WP (C) No.2940/2011


                                       Date of Decision: May 05, 2011


      NARENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI                  ..... Petitioner
                   through Mr. K.K.Rai, Senior Advocate with
                   Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate

                      versus


      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                      through Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Advocate with
                      Ms. Nidhi Minocha & Ms. Shweta Mishra,
                      Advocates for respondents No.1 & 3.
                      Ms. Satya Siddiqui, Advocate for R-2.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.    Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
      the judgment? No
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of

Director (Personnel) Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) and South

Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) pursuant to advertisements dated

September 17, 2010 and September 23, 2010 issued by respondent

No.2, namely, Public Enterprises Selection Board, Department of

WP (C) No.2940/2011 Page 1 Personnel & Training. However, his parent department, namely,

Coal India Limited, who is respondent No.4 before me, did not

forward his application to respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the

action of respondent No.4 in not forwarding his application, he filed

a writ-petition No.847/2011 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh at

Bilaspur. It was contended by respondent No.4 before the

Chhattisgarh High Court that the petitioner did not fulfill the

eligibility criteria. The High Court disposed of the writ-petition vide

its order dated February 21, 2011. The following paragraphs of the

order are relevant for our purpose:-

"x x x x x

5. On a query, as to what is the eligibility criteria, it was informed that the petitioner has joined senior level on 18/11/2002 as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer/Sub Area Manager in SECL. Thus, the contention of Dr. Shukla that the petitioner does not have two years experience at senior level is un-substantiated and is not correct.

6. In view of that not forwarding recommendation of the petitioner to Public Enterprises Selection Board, Government of India is not just and proper. Thus, the Coal India Limited is directed to forward the application of the petitioner as aforestated forthwith to the respondent No.2 for necessary action."

Consequent to the aforesaid order passed by the Chhattisgarh

High Court, respondent No.4 did forward the application of the

petitioner to respondent No.2, but it was done with the following

rider:-

WP (C) No.2940/2011                                               Page 2
               "x      x   x     x     x

We are forwarding herewith the bio-data/ applications (in duplicate) each in respect of Shri NK Tripathi, General Manager (Mining) SECL whose date of birth is 29-10-1959 for selection to the above mentioned three posts.

In this connection it is to state that Shri NK Tripathi is not having at least two years cumulative experience during the last ten years in various aspects of personnel management and industrial relations as per notification of PESB. However, in view of the directive of the Hon‟ble High Court of Chhattisgarh vide Order WP(s) No.847/2011 - Narendra Kumar Tripathi -vs- UOI & Ors dated 21-02-2011 the above applications of Shri Tripathi are forwarded herewith...."

In view of the aforesaid conditional forwarding of the

application, the petitioner once again approached the Chhattisgarh

High Court by way of another writ-petition No.1510/2011, on which

the following order was passed on March 18, 2011:-

"x x x x x

2. If the petitioner feels that despite the clear order rendered by this Court in W.P. (S) No.847/2011, his name is not being considered, the petitioner may approach the concerned authorities for doing the needful. No second petition at this stage for almost the similar relief, is maintainable, as the same has already been considered in the earlier writ petition and order has been passed.

3. In view of foregoing, the petition is dismissed."

WP (C) No.2940/2011 Page 3 The present writ-petition has been filed, as respondent No.2

inspite of the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court has not called the

petitioner for interview, which was scheduled for 4th May, 2011 and

is further scheduled for 5th & 10th of May, 2011.

It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that

the petitioner has not been called for interview, as in terms of the

advertisement, he does not have two years cumulative experience

during the last ten years at a senior level in various aspects of

personnel management and industrial relations in an organization of

repute.

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, on the other

hand, submits that in view of the order passed by the Chhattisgarh

High Court holding the petitioner eligible, respondent No.2 could not

reject his application.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2

that advertisements dated September 17, 2010 and

September 23, 2010 were filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court.

It is obvious therefore, that the Chhattisgarh High Court held the

petitioner eligible for consideration to the post of Director

(Personnel) after considering the aforesaid advertisements. If

respondent No.2 and respondent No.4, both of whom were parties

before the Chhattisgarh High Court, felt aggrieved by the order

passed by the High Court, it was open to them to take recourse to

legal remedy available to them but they did not do so. In this view

WP (C) No.2940/2011 Page 4 of the matter, I feel, that in the teeth of the orders of the

Chhattisgarh High Court, dated February 21, 2011 and

March 18, 2011, respondent No.4 was not justified in forwarding the

application of the petitioner with a rider, and respondent No.2 in

turn was not justified in not calling him for interview.

For what has been noticed above, respondent No.2 is directed

to call the petitioner for interview for the post of Director

(Personnel). I am informed that the next interview is scheduled in

the afternoon of May 05, 2011 and then in the morning and

afternoon of May 10, 2011. It is left to the discretion of respondent

No.2 to call the petitioner for interview on any of these two dates.

It is clarified that this order will not confer any right on the

petitioner for selection to the post. He only has a right to be

considered. It is also clarified that this order will enure only to the

benefit of the petitioner.

The writ-petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

directions.

A copy of this order be given Dasti to learned counsels for the

parties, under the signatures of the Court Master.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

MAY 05, 2011
ka




WP (C) No.2940/2011                                                   Page 5