SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Rohit Rajesh Darshanwad and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 5732 of 2023 with W.P.(S) No. 6152 of 2023 with W.P.(S) No. 4786 of 2024 
Decided On : 10-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate, Mr. Sidharth Ranjan, Advocate, Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Adamya Kerketta, Advocate, Ms. Ankita Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate

Eligibility for employment cannot be retroactively altered post-selection without statutory basis, safeguarding candidates' rights under Articles 14 and 16.

Headnote:(A) Indian Electricity Act, 1956 - Rules 45; Apprenticeship Act, 1961 - Employment - The petitioners, having successfully completed the selection process for Electrician (Non-Excavation/Technician) posts under a notice restricting the selection to certain categories, argued that requirements imposed post-selection lacked legal backing. Eligibility criteria cited allowed for applicants to appear in the test based on previously specified qualifications, which included having completed ITI and apprenticeship training. The court found that additional permits demanded by the respondents were not part of the mandatory qualifications as stipulated and stated that a declaration of eligibility by the candidates should not be later contradicted by the respondent's requirements. (Paras 6, 11, 17, 24)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that a selection process affected by illegal or arbitrary stipulations could be contested and that established qualifications should prevail over conflicting advertisement claims. The petitioners' rights to equal opportunity and legitimate expectations were upheld, reinforcing principles of procedural fairness as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners applied for electrician positions under an advertisement which stipulated qualifications involving ITI credentials and apprenticeship. Post-selection, they were denied appointment letters due to omissions regarding electrical permits not included in the initial requirements.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners, upholding that the requirements for school completion were met without imposing additional, unlisted permits.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the additional permit requirements constituted valid eligibility criteria and the legitimacy of using previous hiring practices as a standard.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that candidates should not be penalized with additional, unrequested requirements after initial eligibility was declared.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; appointment letters directed to be issued within three weeks.

Table of Content
1. overview of the writ petitions and hearing. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background facts of the petitioners' qualifications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. petitioners' argument emphasizing qualifications. (Para 6 , 7)
4. respondents' counterarguments regarding eligibility. (Para 10)
5. court's observations on advertisement versus statutory rules. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. legitimate expectation for the appointment. (Para 17 , 18)
7. judicial review affirming petitioners' claims. (Para 19 , 20)
8. court's final ruling for appointment letters. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

(S.N. Pathak, J.)

These batch of writ petitions raised similar questions of law and facts and hence, the same are heard together and are being decided analogously with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties by this common judgment.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Prayer

3. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of appointment letter on the basis of merit list already prepared by the respondents for the post of Electrician (Non-Excavation / Technician), pursuant to Advertisement No. 63 dated 28.03.2023.

4. For convenience sake, the facts of W.P.(S) No. 5732 of 2023 would be sufficient to decide all these writ petitions. The facts in nutshell are that an advertisement was issued on 28.03.2023 by the respondent-Central Coalfield Limited (for short ‘CCL’) for appointment on various posts including Electrician (Non-Excavation / Technician). This advertisement was for special drive to recruit the reserved category candidates i.e. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class. The total number of posts advertised were 126 for Electrician (Non-Excavation / Technician), out of which 94 posts were earmarked for Scheduled Tribe; 29 for Scheduled Caste and 03 for Other Backward Class (non- creamy-layer). The petitioners being eligible in all respects for such appointment participated in the selection process by submitting their requisite application forms. From perusal of the application forms at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by respondent- CCL, it appears that the candidates were required to upload the requisite / required certificates, namely, professional / technical certificate, ITI certificate and caste / category certificate. These certificates were uploaded online. Clause 15 of the said advertisement stipulates that the applicants fulfilling the eligibility criterion will only be called for Computer Based Test (CBT). The candidates will have to download their admit cards from the link which shall be made available on the website of CCL. The candidatures of the petitioners were found to be in order and hence, admit cards were issued to them. They appeared in the Computer Based Test and were declared successful. The select list has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, in which the names of the petitioners find place. Since the petitioners were found successful, they were called for documents verification for the post of Electrician (Non-Excavation / Technician) by letter dated 19.07.2023. The petitioners appeared on the date and venue fixed for documents verification and produced all those certificates, which they have already uploaded at the time of submission of the application form. Since the appointment letters were not issued to the petitioners, they resorted to application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, but neither the appointment letters were issued nor suitable reply has been furnished and hence, the writ petitions were filed at their instance before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit duly sworn by Chief Manager (P/Rectt.), CCL stating inter alia therein that the petitioners did not fulfil the requisite qualification and hence, appointment letters have not been offered to them. It is specifically pleaded that these petitioners were the candidates for the post of Electrician (Non-Excavation/Tec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top