M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 6.05.2003 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3293 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners appellants.

2. The appellants-writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition for quashing the order dated 11.6.1999 passed by the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant rejecting the representation of the appellants wherein they claimed promotion to the post of Executive Grade from the date juniors to them in service i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted.

3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the claim of the writ petitioners (appellants) that juniors to them have been promoted to higher post and were given accelerated promotion, is misconceived and there has been no discrimination whatsoever.

4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Appellants case is that they are possessing diploma in Mechanical Engineering. In 1972 they were selected and appointed as Construction Supervisors, grade III and joined in Bokaro Steel Plant. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, having similar qualification and diploma in Mechanical Engineering, were alleged to have been subsequently appointed as Construction Supervisors, grade III in the year, 1972 and respondent No. 7, though matriculate, was appointed in grade I on 9.10.1975 in Bhawnathpur Mines, Bokaro Steel Limited. In course of service the appellants were transferred from main Bokaro Steel Plant to Bhawnathpur Lime Stone. Mines along with others. Again they were transferred back to main Bokaro Steel Plant and posted in Project Division in 1999. It was alleged that respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were given promotion including accelerated promotion in complete disregard to the seniority position of the appellants. In 1972 interview was called for in Executive Grade (E-1) through Departmental Promotion Committee and the petitioners-appellants were not considered fit for promotion although juniors to them were promoted in Executive grade. It was stated by the writ petitioners that they were never considered for promotion to E-1 grade by the D.P.C. In 1988 a new selection policy was introduced for selection for the post of Executive cadre through interview by the DPC based on the qualification. It was alleged that the appellants-writ petitioners have been agitating the matter before the authorities by filing repeated representations. However, the representations of the appellants were considered but the same were wrongly rejected by the authorities concerned. 4. We have heard Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad who has appeared as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners and also Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. We have also considered the order by which the representation made by the appellants has been rejected which was impugned in the writ petition.

5. It appears that the appellants earlier moved this Court for the same relief by filing CWJC No. 1075/1992 which was disposed of on 19.2.99 and, thereafter, MJC case being No. 356/99 was also filed for non-compliance of the order. It appears that subsequently show cause was filed along with the order passed by the Managing Director, after considering the representation of the petitioners.

6. Admittedly the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 had the same basic qualification at the time of joining the Company. They joined on various dates in grade VI. However, respondent No. 3 joined in Project Division while respondent Nos. 5 and 6 joined in the work division Respondent No. 7 joined in QMQ division, Each division has their own line of promotion. In the respondent- company there are two sources of selection and promotion i.e. (i) on the basis of seniority in the non-executive cadre based on their vacancies and appraisal of reports, length of service etc and another (ii) through intern