JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred challenging the reasoned order dated 08.09.2011 passed by the Director Personnel, CIL pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 558 of 2011.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are diploma holders but they have been discriminated on the ground that the duration of the diploma course of these petitioners are not of three years rather of two years. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the only criteria for upgradation to E1 grade were that there should be experience of 15 years with diploma course; however, no year was mentioned. Further, in the 255th meeting of the Coal India Limited (CIL in short) held on 17.03.2010; when the proposal of upgradation was approved; then also no criteria of three years diploma course was fixed; rather, it was only indicated that the person for upgradation to E1 grade shall be of 15 years experience with diploma course. Learned counsel further referred to para-22 of the writ application wherein it has been categorically stated that similarly situated employees who were having only two years diploma course have been promoted to E1 grade whereas; these petitioners have been denied the benefit of upgradation. He further contended that the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-CIL has not denied the statement made in para-22 of the writ application, inasmuch as, it is stated that the same is matter of record. In this view of the matter, the reasoned order passed by the Director (P&IR), CIL is non-est in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and the respondent-company may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for upgradation to E1 grade.

4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that it is only the prerogative of the employer for fixing the criteria. He further submits that in the 255th meeting of CIL held on 17.03.2010; though specifically it was not mentioned that the number of years of the diploma course should be of three years but it has been stated that the person should be a diploma holder along with 15 years of experience. He further submits that normally in this field; the length of diploma course is of three years but the petitioners acquired diploma in Automobile Engineering from Hindustan Institute of Engineering Technology, Madras wherein, the duration of diploma course was only of two years; as such, their case was not considered.

He further contended that these three years criteria has been reiterated and re-clarified by the General Manager of Coal India Limited. However, Mr. Mehta could not demonstrate that the statement made in para-22 of the writ application has been categorically denied. He fairly submits that since the specific stands of the petitioners is that similarly situated employees have been considered by the respondents; the petitioners may be given liberty to approach the concerned respondent who shall consider the case of these petitioners ignoring the impugned order.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that the impugned order which has been passed pursuant to the direction of this Court has taken specific ground that the committee while making its recommendation had observed that all recommendations were subject to diploma certificate being recognized and duration of such diploma programme should be minimum of three years where qualification of years was not mentioned. Further, the relevant qualification should have been acquired prior to the period of 15 years taking 31.03.2010 as the cut of date. In other words, the case of these petitioners was rejected on the ground that the duration of their diploma course was only of two years and not three years.

6. This Court cannot interfere with the