Delhi High Court
Shankar Sharan &Ors.; vs Ntpc Ltd. on 12 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5837/2014
% 12th January, 2015
SHANKAR SHARAN &ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Achal Gupta, Mr. Anil Chandel,
Advs.
Petitioner No. 2 and 3 in person.
VERSUS
NTPC LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Bannerjee, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Puneet Juneja, Mr. Sahil Zagotra,
Mr. Sheel Vardhan and Ms. Kopal
Shrivastava, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, petitioners impugn the action of respondent/employer in not calling
the petitioners for the interviews for the posts of General Managers (GM).
WPC 5837/2014 Page 1 of 5
2. The admitted rule which governs the appointment to the post of
GM would be the Inter Office Memo dated 12.6.2012 and para 2 thereof,
and which is reproduced in para 4 of the writ petition which reads as under:-
"4. That in June 2012 the Respondent Corporation issued an
Inter Office Memo dated 12th June 2012 thereby delayering the
category of E-7A executives and merging the category of E-7A
into E-7 category executives. It was further decided by the
Respondent Corporation that for the purpose of appointment to
the post of E8 Six (6) years or more experience taken together
for E-7 & E-7A would be considered. The relevant extract of
the inter office memo is reproduced herein below.
"2.0 The following has, now, been decided:
2.1 The grade of E-7A (AGM) shall be gradually
phased out. Henceforth, no appointments to E-7A grade
shall be effected. Appointment to the post of General
Managers will now be from employees in the grade of
DGM (E-7)/AGM (E-7A0 completing 6 years or more in
E-7 &E-7A taken together. Subsequent to phasing out of
AGMs, appointment to the post of General Manager (E-
8) shall be from Deputy General Manager (E-7) grade."
A copy of an Inter Office Memo dated 12th June 2012 is
attached herewith and marked as Annexure-2."
3. The respondent/employer has interpreted this rule to mean that
a person must have experience both in E-7 and E-7A categories for being
called for the appointment to the E-8 category of General Manager of the
respondent. Respondent-employer states that petitioners only have
experience in the category E-7 and have no experience in category E-7A and
which is not disputed by the petitioners. Therefore, only the persons in
WPC 5837/2014 Page 2 of 5
category E-7A have been called by the employer inasmuch as, vide para 2 of
the Inter Office Memo a person for being called for the post of General
Manager must have 6 years experience taken together in the posts of E-7 and
E-7A. E-7 category is the post of Deputy General Manager (DGM) and E-
7A was the post of Assistant General Manager (AGM). E-8 is the post of
General Manager (GM).
4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is countered that when the
expression '6 years working in the posts of E-7 and E-7A taken together' is
used then the same should mean that even if 6 years are completed only in
the category E-7, the same is enough for being called for the post of E8
because as per the petitioners 'taken together' means 6 years experience in
either or both of the posts E-7 & E-7A.
5. At this stage, it may be stated that originally there was only a
category E-7 posts and later on a new category E-7A was created.
Respondent, for its administrative reasons however thereafter abolished the
category E-7A and retained only the category E-7 and above which category
is now directly the E8 category. It was in these circumstances, the need had
arisen for issuing of the Inter Office Memo dated 12.6.2012 as to what
would be the qualification criteria for appointment to the post of E-8,
inasmuch as, there was an interregnum period in which in addition to the
WPC 5837/2014 Page 3 of 5
executives in E-7 category there were executives who worked in E-7A
category which was created.
6. This Court is only entitled to interfere in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the
interpretation of the relevant Inter Office Memo dated 12.6.2012 by the
employer is arbitrary. If out of the two possible interpretations, one possible
interpretation is taken by the employer of the Inter Office Memo dated
12.6.2012, this Court has no powers to substitute its interpretation for the
opinion and interpretation of the employer as what should be the meaning of
the expression "taken together" in the Inter Office Memo dated 12.6.2012.
This is all the more so because admittedly none of the petitioners have any
experience in E-7A posts and they have experience only in E-7 posts and the
persons who have been called for the interview for the post of GM are those
in E-7A category i.e those who fell in a category higher than the category of
E-7. Thus, for the posts of GM only those candidates have been called who
have had higher qualifications than the petitioners who are E-7 category
candidates ie those called for E8 posts interview are those who occupied
higher posts than the petitioners. There is therefore nothing illegal or
arbitrary or malafide in the action of the respondent in interpreting the Inter
Office Memo dated 12.6.2012 by requiring experience both for the posts of
WPC 5837/2014 Page 4 of 5
E-7 and E-7A taken together for being called for the post of General
Manager which is an E8 post.
7 Dismissed.
JANUARY 12, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
