^ (cS-75^ K;t"K ;aKI ;i;^iU?s IN_THE_HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJT APPEAL N0. f6 7- OF 2010 APPELLANT jPiy^^o^e^ <cSatyawan Nahak, S/o Shri Utsav Nahak, aged abut 37 years, Resident of Kumda Colony, Bishrampur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ .-^ ?®?^- ,<^?^' y ..*-••• South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through: its Chairman-cum Managing Director, Office of the South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road Bilaspur (C.G.) The General Manger, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bishrampur Area, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT 2006 R/W RULE 157(10) OF THE HIGH COURT RULES 2005. .-•'" Being aggrieved by the order dtd.pG.05.2010, passed by the f Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court presided over by Hon'ble Justice Shri Satish 'K. Agnihotri, J. in W.P. (S). No. 7285/2007 (Annexure A-1), the appellant prefer this appeal before their '•tordships on following facts and grounds. tf: '^- APPaA.ANT Petitioner RESPONDBrFS tWHcoij^wamKTmssMWmes^ss^ OIViaONBENCH: MONW.E^ I.M.Qt^BUSI & MQN'BL&SHRJ N.K. A&*RWAL, .N'. WRrTAPPEABNOil67^010 Vs StrlYawoh ISIdiak SoutM6KtemCoalfieldst.td. <&<mother Mr. Arujp A^umdar, Acl^cateforc^pe^ Dr.N.K-Shykla,Sr.Aciv.wthter.^Shukta,AdvoGd^ ^::,.OR^ffib6MENT':'-:1...':'-'':^'^^ '^..:,(Pass^^'17*tfune,<20lO) ' • .; ; ;;:1 - ' \.: I.M. Quddusi.J; :: . : .':; : " . :.:/.• ":'1:" t. Redrdteamedcoun&lfot'thepartjes. 2. This Writ appeal l^ >.0§.20l0 pas»d by[ ^ ie<^^ -No.pB5/2007.dismt^iry|^^ p^or>;^^,^::,^^^? ...I:. 3/ 71^ w^p^ijio^^ Mining iSJrelcir|^ .^eifl^s iftBt^^^^^^^ cpprenti<%inthey^rl99^^rtKreey^rsandc^ learriey counsel foF the vwit^pell^/the w^ gefdgerelaxatjonaswasclOTein^^ •riie-dppeiiant.:-' '-, :,. .••.', ,.1..: :;:; ; ,';' . . ••.^ ; ;/• •:' ^,,: 4. We h<^psiru%clther?<:»rclo^ thewrifoppetiontwi^^Tga^ Act. 1961 for a pet'iod of thT^ years^ It i^ speciftattiy ffie^ engo^ment order of 1tie<writfflppet|ant^t^ trttining peribd; he will have'to sufc^ Sirdar Sh<rt fire & all Wree gas^l^ vacancy(M^sesan3heisfbimdsurtah^;i 5. It is not OT dispute that tl^^^^w thi^ yeans in tl^Y^1994^bu* couldrio^ .•.^^ew s Mininq Sirdar as well os qas testina at •1-hgt time. In the vear 1999 appojntment on the postof Minihg Sirdar w^ considered and at thgt time co-trainees namely Shri Sopal Sinha&Shri Ajay Nair, who had also cofflpleted three years training in the year 1994 and were qualified to hold the post, were given appointment after making age relaxation in their cases. However, there was no question of giving qipointment to the writ dppellant, who was not even qualified in the year 1999 as from perusal of Annexure P-3 it is cleotf' that the writ oppellant appedred in the Mining Sardar examination heldon 19.11.2005 and certificate was issued tohimon7.3.2006. 6. Ar\ advertjsefflent was made to appoint Mining Sirdgr by the respondent in the yecir 2007 jn which the maximum age jimit for QBC candidates on 31.10.2007 wos mentioned as 33 years. The writ appellant, who belongs to OBC categoryand whose dateofbirthis 22.5.1972, becameoveFage. The writ flppellant claimecl. papity witH other candicfates namely Sh ri <^pal SJnha & 5hFi.^jay'1^r^;<^;tt^^^^ with him ancl in 1+ieir eases^e laxation w^ mihd when rte age reiaxatioh was cohsidere in the year 1999 and the appointment^of apprentices on the regutar post of Mining Sjrdar was considereci, the writ appeltant uws rioT qualified ds he could hot obtain the passing certificate 6f Mining Sirctar. Therefore, in the year 2007, when he possed Minjng Sirclar examihation, He cannot claim parity with the co-truinees as fhe respomlents considered the w appointment in the year 1999 on the availability of posts of Mining Sirdars after giving oge reldxatibn as at thdt tjme the appellant was not qualified to holcf the post. r. We also think that a person iike the writ lappellanf, who CQuld not qualify after getl-ing ttlree years trainirig and coufd oblain passing certifjcate only in the year 2005, cannot be given parit/ with others who had submitted their certificates and u»ere cleclafed qualified to hold the post when the vacancies of Mjning; Sirdars M»re^^^^^<^ BSiES* a-BS "ISI -& completion of 1+ieir Trajning i^. after 1994.; Thepefore, no benefit can be given to the writ oppellanton that ground. 8. It isalso mortter of cdnsicler'ation tliat the respdnclentestablislimentisa prestigious establishmentand naturally they would want quality pf work and there i$ no sense to relo«the oge limit on the ground thort the writ flCpellcOTtorfter getting three yeaMappr^ticetraining,which^^^CT ~^' . • . • .'''•'.. •'••-:•''.:. ••'...:•'• "•••• '.;. "• •:. ' : '. '. ':.. • .'. .'•; • ." •'''. ,' •: • .'. ••• in the year 1994, could not pass the Mining Sirdar examination cuid Cduld not submif the cert-ificate even up to tl yeal-s from the comptetion of training.: ,' .; . : :,:, : ••,;:•,.. : ;;.,,:. 9. L^rned coun^i for 1^e Writ aDpetlohthc^ ptacecl relicriceQn 1^ of U. P. Stat® Road Transport Corporation and anothei' Vs. U. P. Parwahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgdr Sangh and others (AIR 1995 SC 1115), in whjch Hon'ble Supreme Courtheld inparal2asunder: 12. In the background of what has been noted oboye, we ^tate 1+iat 4he ^ollowng; woutdl^^k^^ in^ ro while deqiing with the • :'clwro'^.tininees^~g§tssmp1oyment^(»fter';success^ fOf.'thejrtrainmg:;:^3^'.^^^'''":' (1) ; Ofher 1'hings being equal, a trained apprentjce shoyld be gi^n preference over directrecruits. (2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by <my empfoyment exchti^e. Th& d^ this Courl- in Unionqf India v. Hargopa!,AIR 1987 SG 1227, woutd permit th is. ^) If 098 bar would come in the way of the trajnee, thesame would be relaxed in accor3ance with what is stated in this regard, jf flny, in theconcerned service rule. If the service rulebesiientonthisaspect,reloixutiontotheextentofthe period for which tiie apprentice hcd undsrgone training would beqiven. (4) The concerned tFaining institute would maintain a listof'Hie persons troinedyear wise. Thepersonstrmnedearlierwould be treorfed as senior to the persons trained later. In between -tlte trained oipprentices, preference shall be given to those who are Senior. " In the ins-hnnt ^ase other things were nof equal Os the appelldnt compfeted successful troinmg^d ojyfanTedcertifi<M3rte?c^^ 12 years. With r^ard to theage rela^ibn the Hon'lileApex^ directed to r«laxtteage, if theappre^i^fe his periocl of ti'aining but in 1+ie: jns^t case^ ft writappeflcint has become Over age after completiori of the 'training ^iand when he could not obtainacertjfjcatefor aboul-12 years. lO.l^rrKdcounselfo'pltiewrJtappellointhasfurtlier^ of'Non'ble Supreme Court in U. P. Rajya Vidyut P^ Welfare Association and another Vs. State of Uttw Pradeslt and others (AIR 2000 SC 2621) inwhichsimj!ardirectionsweregiven,asin the above case of U. P. Stffte Itead Tronsport' Corpor^ion^^^^^^c^ another (Supra). But unforturKitelyt the law laitf^^ notqiplicableintheinstantci^dSwehavealreadyobsen^dthatwhen the absorption in service of an i^prenti<% ^ rsspondents in the year 1999, the writ appelldirt- was ^not qualified as he couldnotpasstherequisiteexamjnations. - 11. In view of abbye, we areiFiot incli^ orcler chrl^ 6^.2B^ [^s^ corifjrm:.the.;ai(ne.,:::'.•'•. '!:;; .f' 1' • 1 • • • •< :• •:.; ' '' '•' . 12-The writ appeal is misconceived and therefore disffljssed on the odmjssion stage itself. Consequently, I.i$, 1, oppljcation for grant of interim reliefalsoS'tandsdismissed.Moorderostocosts. -^t -. • ' ••: : _——- Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge fSoshan/- lill ^ssa '•?^/&3 Hsa