IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.25810 and 25851 of 2006 WRIT PETITION NO : 25810 of 2006 Between: Kaleru Mallaiah, S/o. Lingaiah, R/o. Quarter No. 107 S/C2, Sharada Nagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (A Government Company) Kothagudem, Khammam District, Khammam. 2 The District (PA & W) Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Kothagudem, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 Somisetti Manohar Prasad S/o. Balakrishnaiah T2-73, Power House Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist. 4 Gudavalli Venkateswara Rao S/o. China Veeraiah N.C-12, Goleti Township, Rebbana Mandal Karimnagar Dist. 5 Poosa Vasanth Kumar S/o. Ilaiah T2-675, G.M. Office Colony, Godavarikhani Karimnagar Dist. 6 T. Venkateswarlu S/o. Mastan T2-630,G.M. Quarters' Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist. 7 Azazullah Khan S/o. Abbas Khan Bhoopalapally, Warangal District RR 3to7 impleaded as per court order dt. 27-12-2006 in WPMP 34258 OF 2006 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents not to proceed further in filling up the vacancies of the Junior Executive Trainee (Civil) E1 grade in pursuance of notification No. 3 of 2006 by the mothod of direct recruitment without first considering the qualified inservice superisor staff in Civil Engineering Department including the qualified inservice supervisor staff in Civil Engineering Department including the petitioner and direct the respondent company to consider the case of the petitioner and other eligible qualified supervisory staff for promotion to the post of Junior Executive Trainee (Civil) in E1 grade with all consequential benefits and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25851 of 2006 Between: 1 Mahavadi Chnadramouli S/o.Mahadev R/o.Sharada Nagar, Godavarikhani Karimnagar District 2 Vadapalli Lakshmi Kantham S/o.Viswanadham R/o.Sharada Nagar, Godavarikhani Karimnagar District 3 N.Suresh Kumar S/o.Lakshmi Narayana R/o.Ellandu, Khammam District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, (A Government Company), rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director Kothagudem, Khammam District 2 The Director (PA& W), Singareni collieries company Ltd Kothagudem, Khammam District 3 Somisetti Manohar Prasad S/o. Balakrishnaiah T2-73, Power House Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District 4 Gudavalli Venkateswara Rao S/o. China Veeraiah NC-12, Goleti Town Ship,Rebbana Mandal, Karimnagar District 5 Poosa Vasanth Kumar S/o. Ilaiah T2-675,G.M. Office Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District 6 T. Venkateswarlu S/o. Mastan T2-630,G.M. Quarters' Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District 7 Azazullah Khan S/o. Abbas Khan Bhoopalapally, Warangal District RR 3to7 impleaded as per court order dt. 27-12-2006 in WPMP 34259 of 2006 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed further in filling up the vacancies of the Junior Executive Trainee (Civil) (Men only) of E-1 Grade either by way of direct recruitment or any other method without first considering the candidature of the qualified and eligible in service supervisory staff in Civil Engineering Department for promotion to the post of Junior Executive Trainee (Civil) E-1 Grade with all consequential benefits and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.25810 and 25851 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, the issue that arises for consideration is about the method of appointment to the post of Junior Executive Trainee (Civil) in E-1 Grade of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short ‘the Company’). The petitioners were initially appointed in Grade-B, at various points of time, and all of them earned promotions to the category of Supervisors in Grade-A. The next higher post is the one in E-1 Grade. The petitioners contend that there is separate channel of promotion to the posts in E-1 Grade and in disregard of the same, the respondents have issued a notification, dated 29.08.2006, proposing to undertake direct recruitment, for as many as 35 posts. The petitioners contend that the respondents themselves have taken the stand in earlier writ petitions that there exists a promotion channel from Grade-A to E-1 Grade, to the extent of identified vacancies, and promotion is not being effected even for a single post. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating that according to Rule 20 of the Recruitment Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) and Procedure, framed by the Company, the recruitment to the different categories of E-1 Grade is not by promotion, but by direct recruitment alone. It is contended that while 33.33% of the vacancies are earmarked for internal candidates, who possess requisite qualification, the remaining posts are to be filled by the external candidates. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though there is some ambiguity in the relevant Rules, the respondents themselves admitted, from time to time, that there exists a channel of promotion from supervisory Grade-A to E-1 Grade, and not withstanding the same, the respondents are proceeding to fill all the existing vacancies in E-I Grade by direct recruitment alone. He has referred to the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.25133 of 1997 as well as some other proceedings, to point out that the respondents admitted that there exists a channel of promotion. On the same lines, Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, had advanced arguments. Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no ambiguity as to the method of appointment to the posts in E-I category and according to Rule 26 of the Rules, the appointment is through the process of conducting a written test, followed by interview. He further contends that 33.33% vacancies are earmarked for internal candidates and in case, the petitioners possess requisite qualification, they can certainly participate in the recruitment process. The method of appointment to the respective categories in any organization is to be provided by the Rules and Regulations to be framed by the competent authority of the organization concerned. On account of the size and content of the Company, uncertainty did prevail in the matter of making appointments to different categories, particularly in the matter of effecting promotions from lower categories. Ultimately, a set of Rules was approved by the Board of Management on 23.04.1990. The petitioners are, at present, holding posts in Grade- A. The post immediately superior to that, is the one in E-1 Grade. Part-II of Rules deals with the method of recruitment to the said posts. E-1 Grade contains 8 categories of posts, such as Engineering (E&M, Mining and Civil), Finance & Accounts, Personnel, Estates. Uniformly, for all these categories, 33.33% of posts are earmarked for internal candidates and the rest, for external candidates. Within the 33.33.%, 50% is allocated for graduates and the balance of 50% for diploma holders. The fact that except the source of candidature, the procedure is common for all, is evident from Rule 26 of the Rules. Nowhere in the entire set of Rules, any avenue for the posts in E-I category is provided by way of promotion from the lower categories. In the absence of any specific provision, this Court cannot compel the respondents to effect promotions to the petitioners. It is no doubt true that correspondence did exist, evidencing that there is a provision for promoting Supervisors of Grade-A to E-1 Grade, against identified vacancies. That, however, is referable to the situation, that existed in the year 1981. The Rules came into existence subsequently. When specific Rules are framed, reliance cannot be placed upon other correspondence. At the most, the petitioners may make a claim independently for providing promotions. That, in turn, must entail in the amendment of Rules. As long as the Rules stand in the present form, the petitioners cannot have any right to seek promotions against the posts in E-1 Grade. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this order does not preclude the petitioners to work out their remedies, be it, in the from of assailing the Rules or otherwise. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 23.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.25810 and 25851 of 2006 Date: 23.04.2008 JSU