Central Coalfields Limited vs Vijay Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1966 Jhar

                               -1-




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      L.P.A. No.426 of 2018
                                ----

Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, P.O.:-Ranchi University, P.S. - Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chief Manager (M.P. & Reett.) having office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-Ranchi Univesity, P.S. - Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) and through its Managing Director (Administration) Sri Bimlendu Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of Jagdish Pandey, resideng at Flat No.2C, Shanti Apartment, Dangra Toli, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).... ... Respondent No.1/ Appellant Versus

1.Vijay Kumar, son of Late Sukhdeo, resident of Village-Bhatabodaya, P.O. -Baroudi, P.S. - Burmu, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).

...Writ Petitioner/ Respondent

2.The Head of Department (M.P./R), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).

3.The Project Officer, Urimari Project, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at PO-Sayal, PS-Urimari, District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).

4.The Staff Officer (P&A), , Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at PO-Sayal, PS- Bhurkund, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand).

. Respondent/Performa Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate

For Res-Writ Pet. : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. A. Kerketta, Advocate

--------

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

Order No. 9: Dated 8th May, 2023

The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under

Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the

order/judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1078

of 2017, whereby and whereunder the writ petition

was allowed and impugned orders as contained in

communication dated 14.09.2015 and 08.12.2016

were quashed and set aside with direction upon the

respondents-Project Officer, Urimari Project, Barka

Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Limited to call upon the

petitioner to produce necessary documents, if any,

required for his appointment on a suitable post.

2. The brief facts, as per the pleadings made in the

writ petition, read as under:

The father of the writ petitioner died in

harness on 18.06.2014 while working and posted as

Wagon Loader Railway Siding in Barka-Sayal Area,

CCL. Immediately thereafter, the mother of the

petitioner submitted an application on 03.07.2014

before the Chief Manager, CCL, Darbhanga House,

Ranchi for grant of compassionate appointment of the

petitioner. But when the case of petitioner was not

considered, the petitioner submitted another

application on 03.09.2015 before the Chairman-cum-

Managing Director, CCL, Ranchi. Pursuant thereto

vide order as contained in letter dated 14.09.2015 the

petitioner was held to be precluded to seek

compassionate appointment on the ground of being

over-aged. Thereafter, the petitioner was medically

examined for assessment of his age, where he was

found to be aged about 35-40 years old as on

15.09.2016. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was

rejected vide order dated 08.12.2016 by not accepting

the date of birth recorded as 20.06.1984 in the

certificate of Prathama, which is equivalent to

Matriculation, issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen,

Allahabad and other relevant documents.

Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this

Court by filing writ petition for quashing the order as

contained in letter dated 14.09.2015, by which he was

precluded to seek compassionate appointment on the

ground of being over-aged and order as contained in

communication dated 08.12.2016, by which, his case

for appointment on compassionate ground was

rejected on the ground that date of birth mentioned in

the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen,

Allahabad has been held inadmissible.

The writ Court, taking into consideration the fact

that the Matriculation (Prathama) certificate produced

by the petitioner has not been found to be fake

certificate and further the age determined by the

Medical Board has wide range in age, allowed the writ

petition by quashing the impugned orders and

directed respondents-authorities to call upon the

petitioner to produce necessary documents, if any,

required for his appointment on a suitable post, which

is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal.

3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the

appellant-CCL has assailed the impugned order on

the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to

appreciate the fact that once the certificate issued by

the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been

held to be inadmissible in view of judgment passed by

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh

Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. Vs. Union of

India & Ors [(2010) 12 SCC 609], the said certificate

for any other purposes also cannot be taken into

consideration otherwise there will be chance of

commission of forgery by getting the certificate for

other purposes i.e., for the purpose of acceptance of

date of birth but this aspect of the matter since has

not been considered in the order impugned, it requires

interference by this Court.

Further contention has been raised that if

the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the

effect of acceptance of date of birth mentioned in the

certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Allahabad will not be discarded then it will amount to

opening of flood gate and so many

persons/candidates who have crossed the age of 35

years will offer his candidature on the basis of date of

birth mentioned in such certificate issued by such

society/institution, which are registered under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860.

4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel

appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent has

submitted that it is not the case where only the

learned Single Judge has put reliance upon the date

of birth referred in the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Allahabad rather the appellants-CCL has assessed the

date of birth of the petitioner by Medical Board, which

has assessed the age of the petitioner to be 35-40

years and it is settled position of law that when the

age of a candidate has been mentioned in between a

particular period, the minimum of the same has to be

taken into consideration for assessment of age. In that

view of the matter, it is evident from the age assessed

of the petitioner by the Medical Board that it has

assessed the age of the petitioner in between 35 to 40

years, as such the minimum age of 35 years has to be

taken into consideration for assessment of age for all

purposes including appointment on compassionate

ground. Therefore, the writ petitioner will come under

the fold of consideration of his candidature for

appointment on compassionate ground where the

maximum age has been fixed 35 years, as provided

under the condition stipulated under NCWA.

In support of his submission, he has referred to

the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Division Bench

of this Court passed in LPA 687 of 2019 in the case

of Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited &

Ors, wherein Co-ordinate Division Bench has laid

down that the age, if assessed by the Medical Board,

wherein the Board has assessed the age of writ

petitioner-appellant of LPA No. 687 of 2019 in

between 35 to 40 years and by taking the mid-point of

five years, his age was assessed to be 37 ½ years,

which was since the above than minimum cut-off age

i.e., 35 years, hence, his candidature was rejected,

while considering the said aspect of the matter, this

Co-ordinte Bench has formulated a question that why

the midpoint on the basis of the assessment of 35 to

40 years is to be followed, while answering the same,

it has been held that counting of midpoint of age

cannot be said to be action to achieve the object and

intent of the NCWA to provide social security measure

to the dependent of the deceased rather the approach

of the respondents-authorities ought to have consider

the age of the writ petitioner by taking its lower age,

so that the object and intend of NCWA be achieved.

Herein also, learned counsel for the writ

petitioner has made submission that the Medical

Board has assessed the age of the petitioner in

between 35 to 40 years and minimum being the 35

years, hence, the writ petitioner is eligible for

appointment on compassionate ground.

Therefore, submission has been made that even

if the ground of date of birth mentioned in the

certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen,

Allahabad will be considered to be not proper then

also it is on the basis of age assessed by the Medical

Board to be in between 35 to 40 years, age of the

petitioner will be considered to be 35 years making

him eligible for consideration of his case of

appointment on compassionate ground as per

provisions made in NCWA.

5. Upon such submission, Mr. Das, learned

counsel appearing for the appellants-CCL has not

disputed the law laid down in the order passed by Co-

ordinate Division in LPA 687 of 2019 [Lilwa

Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors],

however, his only concern is that the finding so

recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned

order by putting reliance upon the date of birth

mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya

Sammelen, Allahabad ought not to have been relied

upon in view of settled position of law laid down by

Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya

Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. Vs. Union of India

& Ors (supra), wherein the certificate issued by such

institution has been held to be inadmissible.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,

perused the documents available on record and the

finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the

impugned order.

The facts of the case, which are not in dispute is

that the father of the petitioner died in harness on

18.06.2014. The writ petitioner made application for

appointment on compassionate ground on 03.07.2014

annexing therewith the certificate issued by Hindi

Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad in proof of his date of

birth where his date of birth has been mentioned as

20th June, 1984. It appears that the petitioner was

medically examined for determination of his date of

birth, wherein his date of birth was found to be in

between 35 to 40 years as on 15.09.2016.

However, the appellants-authorities vide order as

contained in letter dated 14.09.2015 precluded the

petitioner to seek compassionate appointment on the

ground of being over-aged and further vide order as

contained in communication dated 08.12.2016 the

case of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground was rejected on the ground

that the date of birth mentioned in the certificate

issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad has

been held inadmissible.

Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this

Court by filing W.P.(S) No.1078 of 2017, which was

allowed vide order/judgment dated 14.09.2017

accepting the date of birth mentioned in the certificate

issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad by

coming to the conclusion that the certificate so issued

by such institution although is held to be

inadmissible but that cannot be said to be fake/forged

and as such merely because certificate has been held

to be inadmissible the date of birth referred therein

cannot be disbelieved and accordingly, the decision so

taken by the appellants-authorities was quashed and

- 10 -

set aside, against which, the instant intra-court appeal

has been preferred.

7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants has

taken the ground that once the certificate issued by

Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad has been held to

be inadmissible by the judgment passed by Hon'ble

Apex Court in Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti,

Sardarshahar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors

(supra) and as such the same cannot be accepted for

any other purposes including for acceptance of date of

birth otherwise the same will open the flood gate and

the candidate even though have crossed the

maximum age will come out with the certificate issued

by such institution and as such the learned Single

Judge has since without taking into consideration

that aspect of the matter has passed the impugned

order, the same requires interference by this Court.

However, he has not disputed the fact about the

ratio laid down by co-ordinate Division Bench in LPA

687 of 2019 [Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields

Limited & Ors], wherein age assessed by the Medical

Board has been considered by taking the age assessed

at lower side, therefore, is not in a position to dispute

the minimum age of 35 years as assessed by the

Medical Board in between 35 to 40 years for the

- 11 -

purpose of consideration of case of writ petitioner for

his appointment on compassionate ground. Even if

the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by

Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad will not be relied

upon.

8. This Court after appreciating the aforesaid

argument advanced on behalf of appellants-CCL is

first require to answer as to:

"Whether the finding recorded by learned Single

Judge by accepting the date of birth mentioned in

the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen,

Allahabad can be said to be correct finding?"

9. This Court, for the purpose of answering the

aforesaid issue, has considered the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar

& Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the legality

and propriety of the certificate issued by Hindi

Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad has been pleased to

held at paragraph 51, which reads as under:

"51. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions :- (I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed University nor an Educational Board.

- 12 -

(II) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act.

(III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field.

(IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any University/Board. (V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt had ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act, 1970 and further did not seek modification of entry No. 105 in II Schedule to the Act, 1970.

(VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some elementary/basic education or has attended classes in Ayurveda in any recognized college. (VII) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice. (VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice.

(IX) The right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

(X) Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act."

It is evident from the aforesaid proposition of

law, as laid down at paragraph 51, the Hindi Sahitya

Sammelen, Allahabad to be a society registered under

- 13 -

the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not to be a

university/deemed university or an educational board.

Therefore, this Court after taking into consideration

the aforesaid proposition is of the view that certificate

issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad if has

been considered to be inadmissible then for all other

purposes also the said certificate cannot be relied

upon.

The question which has been raised that if the

date of birth mentioned in such certificate will be

allowed to be relied upon there will be mis-utilization

on the part of the candidate who has crossed the

maximum age of appointment cannot be denied

reason being that if a candidate crosses the age of

maximum age for consideration of his appointment he

will approach such society and get a certificate of

making reference of his date of birth according to

his/her suitability and will be able to get the job.

10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the

finding so recorded by the learned Single Judge by

discarding the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex

Court holding such certificate inadmissible will be

said to be inadmissible for all practical purposes

including assessment of date of birth, reason being

that a document issued from a society, like in this

- 14 -

case since the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been held

to be a society by the Hon'ble Apex Court, hence will

have no legal sanctity so far as age is concerned since

age is only to be accepted if as contained in the

certificate issued by the Board or council constituted

by the State.

11. This Court is now proceeding as to whether

even the finding so recorded which is based upon the

admissibility of date of birth mentioned in the certificate

issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad even if

held to be improper as per the discussion made herein

above, there will be any difference in outcome as has

been arrived at learned Single Judge?

12. This Court while answering the issue, is of

the view that for the purpose of answering the issue

the reference of the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate

Division Bench of this Court in LPA 687 of 2019

[Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited &

Ors], is required to be considered, wherein the issue

fell for consideration that on the basis of one

communication issued by the Central Coalfields

Limited dated 07.07.1992 which has been meant to

assess the age of the employee taking the midpoint of

age as has been assessed by Medical Board.

- 15 -

13. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court has

not considered the said document to be applicable for

the purpose of consideration of a case at the time of

getting entry in service rather the said document

speaks about assessment of age for in-service

candidate. The Co-ordinate Division Bench therefore,

has come to the conclusion by taking into

consideration the very intent and object of the

agreement-NCWA it is to provide social security

measures to the dependent of the deceased-employee

and as such it has been considered that the midpoint

of the assessment of the age cannot be said to be

proper rather proper would be by taking lower point

so that object and intent of the NCWA be achieve.

Reference of part of paragraph 14 is required to

be made herein, which reads as under:

14. ... ... ...

The respondent CCL, however, failed to produce any decision of the authority, in case of consideration of appointment on compassionate ground, to take the midpoint of the age assessed by the Medical Board as has been done in the instant case, rather the document dated 07.07.1992 has been produced to assess the age of an employee by taking the midpoint of the age as has been assessed by the Medical Board but since it is not a case of an employee rather the case of a candidate who is seeking appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the said circular will not be applicable in the case of the writ petitioner and in that view of the matter,

- 16 -

when the respondent authorities have asked the writ petitioner to go for the medical examination wherein the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed in between 35 to 40 years and taking the midpoint the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed as 37½ years of age, cannot be said to be an action to achieve the object and intent of the NCWA to provide social security measures to the dependant of the deceased employee, rather the approach of the respondent authorities ought to have been to consider the age of the writ petitioner by taking its lower point so that the object and intent of NCWA be achieved.

14. This Court, taking into consideration the

aforesaid fact and the assessment of age made by the

Medical Board, wherein the age of the writ petitioner

has been assessed to be in between 35 to 40 years

and hence, by taking the minimum point i.e, 35 years

the writ petitioner will be said to be within the

maximum age for consideration of his case for

appointment on compassionate ground as per NCWA.

Considering the same this Court is of the view that

herein also since the writ petitioner on the basis of

applicability of judgment rendered by Co-ordinate

Division Bench of this Court which has been affirmed

by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.11.2022

passed in S.L.P. (c) Diary No. 31747 of 2022 is of the

view that the age of the writ petitioner is to be

considered to be 35 years as per assessment made by

Medical Board constituted by the appellants-CCL

- 17 -

itself, hence, the rejection of the case of the petitioner

for his appointment on the ground that he has

crossed the age of 35 years cannot be said to be

proper.

15. In that view of the matter, this Court is of

the view that even if the age relied upon by the writ

petitioner, as referred in the certificate issued by the

Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad is inadmissible

for acceptance of date of birth then also the writ

petitioner is entitled for consideration of his case for

appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of

assessment of age made by the medical board taking

its lower age to be 35.

16. Accordingly, as per the discussions made

hereinabove, the outcome as has been arrived at by

the learned Single Judge requires no interference.

17. Accordingly, this instant appeal fails and is

dismissed.

18. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the

appellants-CCL has sought for six weeks' time to take

decision for the purpose of compliance of the order

passed by learned Single Judge.

19. As prayed for, six weeks is granted to comply the

order passed by learned Single Judge.

- 18 -

20. In view of disposal of intra-court appeal, the

pending Interlocutory Application, stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.) Alankar/

A.F.R.