Case: Coal India Ltd Vs. Bibbu Ranjan Kumar

2. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the respondent possesses the prescribed qualification for holding the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee) under thewhich is a Government Company. The question having been answered in the affirmative by the single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, vide the judgment dated 7.10.1999 in W.P. No. 1449 of 1997 which was confirmed by the Division Bench vide the judgment/order dated 24.11.1999 in G.A. No. 4468 of 1999, the company has filed this appeal by special leave.3. The relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus :The respondent Bibhu Ranjan Kumar holds a post in thecadre of the company. The management decided to promote qualified and suitable persons incadre to the executive cadre. By the letter dated 22.4.1997 addressed by the General Manager (Personnel) to the General Manager/Chief General Managers of different companies under the management of the appellant a request was made to send names of eligible departmental candidates for appointment to the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee). In the said letter it was specifically stated that theive personnel who possess MBA degree (two years course) with specialisation in personnel management duly recognised by the Director General, Mines Safety (for short `DGMS) with 40% and above marks be sent. The respondent claiming to be an eligible candidate wanted his name to be recommended and histo be sent to the centralized cell of thefor the purpose. The appellant did not accept the respondent as a candidate possessing the prescribed eligibility qualification4. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to theto consider his claim for the post. A single Judge of the High Court by the interim order passed on 17th July 1997 directed theto allow the petitioner to sit for the examination but ordered that his result shall not be published for a period of two weeks from the date of the order. It was made clear that the order will be subject to the final order which will be passed in the writ petition.5. At the hearing of the writ petition the main contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was that the petitioner holds a MBA degree (two years course) from the Magadh University, Bodhgaya in the State of Bihar, with a special paper in personnel management and therefore he is duly qualified for holding the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee). On the other hand the stand taken by the respondent in the writ petition (appellant herein) was that the writ petitioner does not have the prescribed qualification inasmuch as he does not possess MBA degree with specialisation in personnel management recognised by the DGMS, and therefore, he is not eligible to be considered for the post.6. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent (appellant herein) to publish the result of the examination within two weeks. From the discussions in the judgment it appears that the learned single Judge took the view that since the rules merely prescribed that the candidate must possess a degree ordegree or diploma with specialisation in certain subjects including `Personnel Management; and the writ petitioner holds a MBA degree which is adegree from a recognised University with a special paper in `Personnel Management he possesses the prescribed qualification. The Division Bench, in appeal, confirmed the judgment.

Reasoning:
11. On a fair reading of the provisions of the Rule quoted above it is clear to us that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of(2) of rule 72 are to be read in conjunction with each other and a person in order to be eligible to hold the post of Welfare Officer must fulfil these conditions except the practical experience of handling labour problems in any industrial undertaking for atleast three years which is optional.12. It is not in dispute before us that the respondent does not have a degree ordiploma in Social Science including any degree ordiploma in Sociology/Social Welfare/Work/Service/Science Techniques or Labour Laws/Welfare or Industrial Relations and Personnel Management. The qualification possessed by him is MBA degree (two years course) with `Personnel Management as a special paper which on a bare reading of the provision of the Rule does not come within the qualifications provided therein.13.The further question to be considered is whether the respondent possesses the qualification stated in the letter of the General Manager (Personnel) dated 22.4.1997 (Annexurein which the heads of different units were required to sendves who possess MBA degree (2 years course) with specialisation in Personnel Management duly recognised by DGMS with 40% and above marks.It is not the case of the respondent that MBA degree of Magadh University has been recognised by the DGMS. Indeed, it is the specific stand of the appellant that the said degree has not been recognised by the DGMS. Therefore, the respondent cannot be said to possess the qualification stated in the circular letter.14. From the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs the resultant position that emerges is that the High Court erred in holding that the respondent possesses the qualification prescribed for the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee) or for promotion fromcadre to the executive cadre