gm i: mmw I 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmsc wmr PETH‘ION (5) No. 9T 9’ /2o11 PETITIONER / Narendra Kumar Tripathi, S/o. AT BILASPUR Late Krishna Chandra Tripathi, Aged about 51 presently posted ' as G.M. Operation, Gurmm Area of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, District-Koria (CG) years, VERSUS RESPONDENTS. I /1. Union of India Through Secretary Department of Personnel 8t Training, North Block, New Delhi ecretary, Public Enterprises Selection oard, Public Enterprises Bhawan, Block o. 14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New elhi-110003. - ecretary, Ministry of Coal, Shastry Bhawan, New Delhi Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India 10, Netaji Subhas West Bengal 700001, India and Industrial India Road, Kolkata w“ v0“ of: ’v\ m “,A (9 Limited, Road, Kolkata Director (Personnel Coal 10, Netaji Subhas West Bengal 700001, India South Eastern Coalfields Limited,‘ through hairman-cum~Managing Director, South astern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Ro£y Bilaspur (C.G.) Relation) Limited, .. ””\f S B N D S C E @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATI’ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.847 OF 2011 PETITIONER Narendra Kumar Tripathi Versus RESPONDENTS Union of India & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Kishore Bhaduri and Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Smita Ghai, Advocate for the respondent No.1 & 3. Dr. N.K. Shukia, Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.4 to 6. [K f a ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 215‘ day of February. 2011) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner while working as Chief Mining Engineer/GM. (Operation), made an application for selection to the post of Director (Personnel), Western Coalfields Limited (for short “the WCL") pursuant to the communication dated 17‘“ September, 2010 (Annexure P/1) to all the Executives of other central Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) (including subsidiaries) and all the Chief Secretary of State Governments/UTs. The qualification and experience prescribed for the said selection reads as under :- “ll. QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE: The incumbent should be a graduate with good academic record from a recognized university with at least two years cumulative experience during the last ten years a senior level in various aspects of personnel management and industrial relations in a organization of repute. Persons with Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Personnel Management or MBA with specialization in Personnel Management/ Industrial Relations as an elective subject from a recognized university or Institute or Degree in Law or Industrial Engineering will have an added advantage.” I Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the South Eastern Coalfield Limited/respondent No.6 has recommended the name of the petitioner along with others to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD), Coal India Limited vide communication dated 22/1 1/2010 (Annexure P/20). The Chairman, Coal India Limited, D (P & lR) directed to fonNard the application of the petitioner for consideration to PESB as under: “Let the case be fom/arded for consideration of PESB as was done in case of' Shri Shrivastava, Co. Secy. NCL, who has become D (P) ECL. Sdi 22.11.10 Chairman a (Coal India Ltd.) D (P & IR)” W Thereafter, it appears that on 23/11/2010 the Senior Manager, P (CRC), observed that “need not be forwarded”. Dr. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 6, submits that so far as experience is concerned, though the petitioner is in possession of required eligibility, however he does not have two years of experience. On a query, asto what is the eligibility criteria, it was informed that the petitioner has joined senior level on 18/11/2002 as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer/Sub Area Manager in SECL. Thus, the \ contention of Dr. Shukla that the petitioner does not have two years experience at senior level is un-substantiated and is not correct. In view of that not forwarding recommendation of the petitioner to Public Enterprises Selection Board, Government of India is not just and proper. Thus, the Coal India Limited is directed to fonNard the application of the petitioner as aforestated forthwith to the respondent No.2 for necessary action. 7. In case, if the application of the petitioner is not received on or \Eefore 22"d February, 2011 as directed, the respondent No.2 i.e. PESB may consider for postponing the interview, which is likely to be heid on 24‘“ February, 2011 accordingly. It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case, as the above—stated observations are pn‘ma facie based on the documents appended with the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certmed copy today. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge