v1 fid «»<^ _• "i ^i n K W • +) '• .• « U 01 p r« <a (« n U •-^^^^. • ^ y o •rt M O S 01 ^ v\ Hi Q! E^l 5S ail 81 £1 51 iff ^ -% 7~~''M aU' . l^t' "6. >M3hsnIal, Junior Qfficez,. Nationai Mnsial ^eveljonient COIPMatio".l-td., 10.3.3ii,/A. Csstle HUls ivissao'fank^ I-iyderabad-500 023. _ - -----——-— ..^^^ tc,.,.., Bama ^Shankei Singh^chargemsn (Elecf, Bailsdiis iE'oh Qre^ftcoject, Deposit ito.5, J>.6. Ba^heli,~Distt.' _sDa.iTtewada (ul.P)'. ~ '_ ~ ' ---——. -—.-.^^^ ^M:MishIa» char96!Ban (Elsct),Bailadila, IronQre 1 Project, Deposit"Na.5,'P.O. Bacheli, Distt~;Dantewads (W^ M.G.Das,Chargefflan(El6ct),Bailadila Iran Qre-Pro-iect. 1 Deposi^^.5.-P.O^acheli; Distt^Dantewadr^p)'3"1"" J • ^^s^^^^^^^^ Huderafead- 500 02-3.'* "--t'/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR "y Writ Petition No. 4887 of 1998 Petitioner S. K. Samuel Versus Respondents Union oflndiaandothers IB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satash K. Agaihotri, J Shri Viaay Pandey, Advocate for thc pctitioner. Shri V. S. Thvari, Advocate on the authority of Shri S. K. Ben?j?al, gteKg^tanduig counsel for fhe Uiiion of India/Respondent No.l. Shri Anish Paadey, Advocate with Shri N. N. Roy, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 5. None for fhe respoudents No. 6 to 10. ORAL ORDER { 6*- July, The foUoiving order of the Couit is passed by Satish K. &gfuhotti, J. The petitioner was initiaUy appointed as Electrician Giade-II in the respondent No.2 Corporation and was posted at Deposit No.l4 of Bailadila Irou Ore Project, Kirandul, District- Baster. The petitioner was fhereafter proinoted to fhe post of Electncian Grade-I and to fhe post of Senior Electrician on 6.4.1974. As per the job specification, description of fhe National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., 3 years experience for LEE (Licensiate of Electrical Engineerin^ saad 10 years experience for ITI (ludustrial Technical Institute) for promotion to the post of Chargeiaan (Electrical)/Foremaa (Electrical) ll'fe:.-M is required. The case of the petitioner is ftiat the petitiouer was denied the promotion to the post of Chargeman (Electrical) on the ground that he was not hokling the supemsory certfficate of cqnipetency. The .'•^S^aBs.BiW^^^si^^R^g"^^^ alBBWEls^iW' •••••'^wf^Wm^iS.^. T» » H.^.aats;" 3. petitioner has cited examples of other peisons nainely Shri N. G. Das and Shri M. M. Mishra, who have been promoted to the post of Chargeman (Electrical) without having supervisoiy certificatE of coinpetency. It is not clear fiom fhe perusal ofthe papers appended to the petition and retuni as to whether tlie said persons were LEE holders or ITI holders. The petitioner is ueither LEE. nor !TI but holds wireinaji certificate. Hence, on the basis ofthe inaterials avaflable it can not be held tfaat fhene was discriniuiation and other siinnarly situated persons, as stated above, have been proinoted without holdiag the siipervisory certificate of coiupetency. It appears that the claini of tlie petitioner for promotion to the post of Chargeinau (Electrician) was denied on the ground that he was not holding the requu-ed supei'visor)? coinpetency certificate, which is just and proper. For fhe reasons stated above, tliis petition stands disraissed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge "^-