IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3986 of 2008(Y) PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. COCHIN REFINERIES WORKERS ASSOCIATION REG.NO. 7/82/91. KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED AMBALAMUGHAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ELDO K.MATHEW. 2. REFINERIES EMPLOYEES UNION, REG.NO. 7/10/2002, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.K.NAZEEKUDEEN. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATES, MUMBAI 400 001,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED COCHIN REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (H.R) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED COCHIN REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL. 4. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED COCHIN REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL. WP(C).No. 3986 of 2008 :: 2 :: 5. THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER STARKAT BHAVAN, BLOCK A, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI 110 023. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR R3 BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3986 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are trade unions claiming to represent 75% of the employees of the Cochin Refineries, Ambalamugal, a unit of the 1st respondent. Though they are registered Trade Unions as such, the 1st respondent disputes the assertion that they represent the majority of workers. Ext.P1 is the recruitment policy that was being followed by erstwhile Cochin Refineries. Reference is made to Ext.P1 to contend that in the case of direct recruitment, posts are to be advertised in the news papers; selection is to be made on the basis of a written test and interview. The allegation is that this has been given a go-by in the matter of recruitment to the post of Sports Officers. It is contended that Sports Officer is an A Grade Officer. A vacancy was created in the said post by transferring the incumbent in the Security Department and apparently, steps were taken by the 3rd respondent to fill up the said vacancy secretly, it is alleged. W.P.(C).NO.3986/08 :: 2 :: Complaints were made, in this regard, by the employees and reference is made to Ext.P5. Reference is also made to Exts.P2, P3 and P4, which contain allegations general in nature, made to the Chief Vigilance Officer, the 4th respondent. Petitioners have filed this writ petition requiring respondents 1 to 3 not to fill up the post of Sports Officer in the Cochin Refineries, Ambalamugal, without advertising the vacancy either for direct recruitment or by promotion. There is also a prayer seeking a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to take appropriate action on Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Insofar as the allegation that there is a move to effect appointment to the post of Manager, which is a D Grade Officer post, the firm stand taken is that there is no proposal now to fill up the vacancy. It is also submitted that there is now an officer officiating by way of working arrangement. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that regular recruitment to Group D posts will be effected only by following the regular recruitment W.P.(C).NO.3986/08 :: 3 :: procedure. The same stand has been reiterated by the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Apparently, there is a proposal for appointment of a Sports Personnel in a supernumerary post. Reference is made to the proposal to appoint one Joby Mathew, 31 years old, suffering from 65% physical disability (extreme congenital deformity of lower limbs) who, in spite of the disability, it is pointed out, is a Post graduate in Political Science with a degree in law. 4. The counter affidavit makes reference to the numerous awards bestowed on Sri.Joby Mathew. In fact, there are so many that I do not think it necessary to extract them in this judgment. 5. But, a reading thereof would show that apparently the company is intending to render assistance to a person, who has proved himself in the field of Sports, fighting odds in spite of his severe physical disability. It is also relevant to note that he is one of the Olympic probables for Arm Wrestling and Wheelchair Fencing for the Beijing W.P.(C).NO.3986/08 :: 4 :: Olympics, 2008. The company has taken note of the fact that in spite of these achievements, his current earnings are in the region of Rs.5,000/- and he has not received any sponsorship either of the State Government or the Central Government. Apparently, his family comprising of his mother and sister, live in penury and they are depending on him for livelihood. I take note of these pertinent facts elaborately outlined in the counter affidavit and in my view, there is no reason why a Public Sector undertaking should not be sensitive to the requirements of an extraordinary individual in the field of Sports. The intervention of an organization like the 1st respondent will go a long way to encourage a person like Mr.Joby Mathew. 6. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, though they are right in contending that a Public Sector undertaking like the 1st respondent, which is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, should adhere to the regular selection procedure and the recruitment policy, whenever recruitment is sought to be made. I do not W.P.(C).NO.3986/08 :: 5 :: think that the petitioners can have a real grievance against the creation of a supernumerary post for the benefit of a person, who is well accomplished in Sports. In my view, the court cannot find fault with and say that, the proposal as outlined in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, to engage the services of Mr.Joby Mathew against a supernumerary post, is not justified. At the same time, I record the submission made by the counsel for respondents 1 to 4 that regular recruitment to the post of Manager (Sports) in which post, there is currently a vacancy, will be done only by adhering to the recruitment rules. In my view, this will suffice insofar as the apprehension voiced by the petitioners are concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.P.Ramakrishnan submits that certain general grievances have been brought to the notice of respondents 4 and 5 vide Exts.P2 to P5 and the same may be looked into. Mr.Jayasankar, counsel for respondents 1 to 4 assures that the same shall be done. W.P.(C).NO.3986/08 :: 6 :: 8. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to look into Exts.P2 to P5 and take the follow up action to the extent the same merits consideration. At any rate, a reply may be given to Exts.P2 to P5 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge