Letters Patent Appeal No.348 OF 2006 ***** Against the order dated 24.3.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8966 of 2005. ***** 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal and Mining, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan, 10-Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata. 3. The Personnel Manager (Recruitment), Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan, 10-Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata. ...... Respondents- Appellants. Versus 1. ALOK ANAND, son of Radha Krishna Bhagat, resident of MIG-10 B, Sec-3, Housing Board Colony BARARI, District- Bhagalpur-812 003. 2. Mukesh, son of G.P. Gupta, resident of Punaichak (Mohanpur), Opposite P.N.B. Road, District- Patna. 3. Deepak Prakash, son of Naresh Prasad Singh, resident of Hemjapur, Police Station- Shiokund, District- Munger-811201. 4. Ravish Kumar Rana, son of Subodh Kumar Rana, resident of Surkhital Bari, Khanjarpur, P.S. Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagapur-812001. ..... Petitioners- Respondents. ***** For the Appellants: Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate and Mr. K. Ravish, Advocate. For the respondents: N o n e. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ***** Kishore K. Mandal, J. The respondent Coal India Ltd. and its functionaries of C.W.J.C. No.8966 of 2005 (Alok Anand and others Vs. The Union of India and others), have filed the present appeal under 2 Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and raise a grievance with regard to the finding recorded at paragraph 7 of the impugned order, whereby the learned Single Judge has found and held as under: “... The quota reserved for Direct Recruits in the Engineering discipline is 2/3rd of the sanctioned vacancies. The Engineering discipline necessarily includes Mining within its fold as both disciplines have been clubbed together in Rule 3.2(a) which provides for initial recruitment of Executive Trainee.” 2. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition. The writ petitioners (respondents herein) filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision of the Managing Committee of the Coal India Limited which have been communicated vide order as contained in letter no.CIL:CSA(1): 50297:42 dated 09.03.05 issued under the signature of Personal Manager (Recruitment) whereby and whereunder it has been communicated that the selection process of May 2001 has been dropped by them. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Advertisement dated 09.02.05 published in the Times of India whereby and whereunder fresh vacancies have been advertised for the SC/ST category candidates for filling up the post of management trainees in the mining discipline by the Coal India Ltd. (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent 3 authorities to publish the final result/merit list of the successful candidates and to appoint them on the post of management trainees in pursuance of the selection process of May 2001. (iv) For any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinunder.” 3. The background facts in nutshell leading to the present appeal may be noticed. Some time in July 1997, the respondent Coal India Limited came out with an advertisement for appointment of Management Trainees (Executive Grades) in different disciplines including Mining. The writ petitioners who were holding Bachelor degree of Mining Engineering also applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. A written examination was conducted in April 1998, wherein they appeared. The result of the said examination was, however, not declared/published. On query they were informed that their results were not published in view of certain orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Instead of publishing the result, the respondent Coal India Limited once again came out with another advertisement (Annexure-4), which was published in May 2001, for recruitment of Management Trainees. The writ petitioners again applied. They were issued admit-cards, whereafter they appeared at the examination which was conducted on 4.11.2001. The result of this examination was not published. However, the writ petitioners 4 claimed that their names appeared in the provisional result of the said written test/examination. It further appears that they were intimated by notice dated 7.3.2002 (Annexure-5 series to the writ petition) for appearing at the interview. The writ petitioners accordingly appeared at the interview with all requisite certificates which were also verified and thereafter retained by the authorities of Coal India Limited. The authorities, however, did not publish the final result of the said examination leading to C.W.J.C. No.9055 of 2004, which was ultimately disposed of on 17.1.2005 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), with the direction to the authorities of the Coal India Limited to consider the grievances of the petitioners and dispose of the representations filed by them within the time frame. The representation(s) of the petitioners was/were considered and disposed of by an order dated 9.3.2005 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). Subsequently the authorities of Coal India Limited came out with a notice in the newspaper dated 31st December, 2005/6th January 2006 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), cancelling the process of selection for appointment to the post as Management Trainees for different disciplines, including Mining. Aggrieved by the order disposing of their representations (Annexure-7), as also the notice of cancellation (Annexure-12), the petitioners preferred the 5 present writ petition seeking the relief which we have already extracted hereinabove. 4. While assailing that part of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 7 of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellants contend that the said finding is erroneous as the learned Single Judge has not properly construed the relevant provisions of the Rules which govern the appointment to the post of Management Trainee (Mining) in executive grade (E-1 and E-2). It is submitted that the Government of India in the Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal have framed a rule which governs recruitment to different posts both at non-executive level and at the executive level (E-1 and E-2). Rule 3.2 of the said Rules provides for „Initial Recruitment‟ which runs as follows: “3.2 Initial Recruitment Normally recruitments will be made at the executive entry level in different disciplines as indicated below: (a) Mining Discipline & Engineering Disciplines (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Electronics etc.) As Junior Executive Trainees. (b) Personnel Discipline As Trainee Welfare Officers or Management Trainees. (c) Material Management, Sales & Marketing disciplines. As Management Trainees. 6 (d) Others In the grade of E-1/E-2 as the case may be. Recruitment at senior level may also be restored to at the discretion of the management, if qualified and experienced executives are not available departmentally in requisite numbers. Chapter IV of the said Rules prescribes different provisions under caption “CADRE SCHEMES AND PROMOTION PROCEDURES”. Rule 4.10.1 of the Rules occurring under Chapter IV (Annexure-9) reads as follows: “4.10.1- From Non-executive to Executive Cadre (a) The quota reserved for departmental promotion to grade E-1 or E-2, as the case may be, in various disciplines will be as follows: Accounts and finance 10% of the posts to be filled in a financial year. Materials management 1/3rd -do- Engineering (Non-mining) 1/3rd -do- Personnel & administration 50% -do- Sales & marketing 50% -do- Other miscellaneous 50% -do- Survey 100% -do- 5. In view of these two provisions appearing in the Rules learned counsel for the appellants submits that so far as the Mining discipline is concerned, the same has been construed as a different and distinct discipline from that of engineering discipline which includes Electrical, Mechanical, Civil and Electronics. Referring to the aforesaid rule 4.10.1, it is contended that so far as the Engineering Discipline (Non-mining) is concerned, promotion 7 procedure prescribes that 1/3rd of the post shall be reserved for departmental promotion to Grade E-1 and E-2. Learned counsel for the appellants highlights that this is restricted to Engineering (Non- mining). In the submission of learned counsel, the learned Single Judge fell in error in not taking into account the entire provisions of the Rule governing appointment/promotion to different posts/cadre of the management trainee and has erroneously held that Engineering Discipline shall necessarily include Engineering (Mining). He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of V.K. Majotra Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2003) 8 S.C.C. 40 (paragraphs 8 and 17), in order to impress upon us that if the Rule does not provide for a particular mode of recruitment, then the Court cannot direct for the same. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and perused the materials available on record including the rules which have been placed on the record as Annexures 5 and 9. Of course in rule 3.2 of the Recruitment of Executive Rules (Chapter-III) Mining Discipline and Engineering Discipline have been clubbed together but the Notes appended to the said rule clearly states that recruitment at senior level may also be resorted to at the discretion of the management, if qualified and experienced executives are not available departmentally in 8 requisite numbers. The promotion procedures have been specifically provided in Chapter IV, wherein certain quota has been reserved for departmental promotions to different grades of E-1 or E-2. In this rule, provision for Engineering (Non-mining) quota of 1/3 vacancies of posts have been reserved for departmental promotion which is confined to the Engineering (Non-mining) discipline. The Court‟s applying the rule of harmonious construction would come to a conclusion that Engineering Discipline and the Engineering (Mining) discipline have been differently treated under the said rules. Although both of them are clubbed together in Rule 3.2 which provide for initial recruitment which again is underlined by a proviso/note that at senior level the management may exercise discretion while providing provision for promotion Engineering (Non-mining) was included but Engineering (Mining) was omitted, thereby arrogating to the management exercise of such discretion. 7. To us it appears that the learned Single has not taken into account the rules/provisions as contained in Chapter IV and thereby held in paragraph 7 of the judgment that the Engineering discipline necessarily includes Mining within its fold as both disciplines have been clubbed together in rule 3.2(a) which provides for initial recruitment of Executive Trainee. We are thus of the view that the said finding recorded by the learned Single 9 Judge is contrary to the rule/provision. We thus accordingly clarify that Engineering discipline appearing in Chapter IV of the Rules shall not include Engineering discipline (Mining). 8. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid clarification in the order under challenge. The operative portion of the impugned order contained in paragraph 8 is accordingly also clarified/modified. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K. Katriar, J. I agree. (S.K. Katriar, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 29th day of April, 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR).