IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 26233 of 2005(W)
1. P.K.ROUT, E/NO. 911, SENIOR SECURITY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. THE HEAD (HRM), CORPORATE OFFICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.T.RAVI KUMAR.
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :02/03/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 26233 OF 2005
---------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner, who is working as Senior Security Officer in
Indian Rare Earths Division, Udyogamandal has filed this writ
petition with a prayer to treat him to have been appointed to the
post of Deputy Manager (Security) with effect from September
11, 2003, the date on which he joined the company as the Senior
Security Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was
given appointment to the lower post of Senior Security Officer
with a lesser pay scale, though he had applied for a higher post
and was in fact interviewed and short-listed by the selection
committee to the said higher post.
2. A brief reference to the essential facts may be
necessary to consider the question whether the petitioner is
entitled to get any relief in this writ petition.
3. It is the admitted position that the company invited
applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post
of Deputy Manager (Security) in the scale of pay of Rs. 13,000-
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers 350-18,250/-. The eligible criterion for the post was also
admittedly included in the notification, which reads thus:
“The candidate should be a graduate and short
commissioned officer retired from the Indian Army atleast
in the rank of Captain and with a minimum civil industrial
security experience of 8 years. Alternatively CISF
Officers equivalent to the level of Captain in the Indian
Army with minimum of 8 years experience in large
industrial undertakings could also apply”.
4. It appears that 22 candidates including the petitioner
had responded to the above notification issued by the company.
According to the petitioner, 6 applicants including the petitioner
were short-listed and invited for interview. Petitioner was placed
at Sl.No. 3 in the select list prepared by the selection committee.
It is the case of the petitioner that the said list was prepared by
the selection committee after having found that the selected
candidates were eligible for appointment to the post of Deputy
Manager (Security). However, the company issued Ext.P3 office
order on May 21, 2003 offering the post of Senior Security Officer
in the scale of pay of Rs.10,750-300-16,750/-. It is beyond
controversy that the petitioner accepted the offer and joined duty
on September 11, 2003.
5. It is on record that before joining duty as Senior
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
Security Officer, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation
before the company on May 29,2003 requesting for protection of
his pay, which he had been drawing from his earlier employer viz.
Hindusthan Zinc Ltd., where he had been working as Deputy
Manager (Security and Intelligence). It is admitted by the
petitioner that the said request was turned down through Ext.P5.
As mentioned earlier, petitioner had accepted the offer of
appointment to the post of Senior Security Officer and joined
duty in September 2003. Petitioner had subsequently completed
his probation in September 2004. He continued to work in the
company even thereafter. This writ petition was ultimately filed
by him on September 2, 2005 for getting relief as mentioned
above.
6. It is contented by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the respondents having invited applications for the
post of Deputy Manager (Security) and they having completed
the selection process for the said post by holding interview and
selecting the panel of eligible candidates for the said post, they
were not justified in offering an inferior or lesser post of Senior
Security Officer to him. Petitioner has placed heavy reliance on
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
Exts. P11, P12, P13, P14 and P15 to show that the respondents
had in fact completed the selection process to the post of Deputy
Manager (Security) after short -listing 6 out of 22 applicants. A
perusal of the documents mentioned above will undoubtedly
show that the selection committee had been constituted for the
purpose of selection to the post of Deputy Manager (Security)
and that the committee had also proceeded in that direction.
7. Ext.P15 will show that 6 candidates enlisted therein,
including the petitioner, were recommended for being called for
interview for the post. Ext.P13 contains names of 5 candidates
who were recommended by the committee for selection on the
basis of the Bio-data and their performance in the interview.
Petitioner’s name appears at Sl. No.4 in the list in Ext.P13.
According to the respondents, in Ext.P13 proceedings, the
committee had recommended that Sl.No.1 in the list was eligible
for the post of Deputy Manager (Security) while the other four
candidates including the petitioner were found eligible only for
the post of Senior Security Officer. It is true that such an
endorsement is seen against the respective names of the
candidates. But the petitioner has raised a contention that
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
though noting against the names of the candidates were made by
somebody at a later stage and not by the members of the
selection committee. One apparent reason pointed out by the
petitioner is that the handwriting in those endorsements varies
from the one which appears in the same document. Anyhow, the
fact remains that the Company had offered only the post of
Senior Security Officer to the petitioner and not the post of
Deputy Manager (Security).
8. The case of the respondents is that 6 out of the 22
applicants were short-listed though it was found that none of the
candidates had possessed the requisite qualification as notified by
the Company. While conceding that, the petitioner and the other
five candidates were invited for interview for the post of Deputy
Manager, it is contended by the respondents that they did not
deem it necessary to issue a fresh notification and resort to fresh
selection process for the post of Senior Security Officer
apprehending further delay. The Company wanted to make
appointment to the vacant post as early as possible. It was
therefore that the petitioner was offered the post of Senior
Security Officer as revealed from Ext.P3. Petitioner had accepted
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
the offer with his eyes wide open. The Company had made it
abundantly clear in Ext.P3 itself that it would be open to the
petitioner either to accept the offer or reject it. He has further
informed that if he did not convey his acceptance and reported
for duty before the date mentioned in the letter, the offer of
appointment would automatically be treated as cancelled.
9. As mentioned earlier, the specific case of the petitioner
is that the respondents had all along proceeded with the selection
process as though they were considering the eligibility of the
candidates for the post of Deputy Manager (Security). In this
context, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to
the recommendation made by the selection committee, which
specifically referred to the post of Deputy Manager (Security).
But it is asserted by the respondents in their counter affidavit
that they had considered the petitioner for the lesser post of
Senior Security Officer since he did not fulfill the eligibility norms
for the notified post.
10. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the respondents had concealed or
suppressed the fact that the selection committee, which was
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
constituted by the respondents themselves, had found that five
candidates including the petitioner were in fact eligible for being
appointed to the post of Deputy Manager (Security). If the
selection committee had in fact made such a recommendation,
there was no justification on the part of the respondents to
overlook the said recommendation and offer a lesser post to the
petitioner. In this context, learned counsel also points out that
Sl.No.1 out of the five candidates recommended by the selection
committee was in fact offered the post of Deputy Manager
(Security). Learned counsel further submits that there is no clue
as to why such an offer was made only to one among the five
equally five ineligible candidates.
11. There is nothing to deny the fact that the respondents
had decided to go ahead with the selection process to the post of
Deputy Manager (Security) in spite of the fact that the short-
listed candidates did not possess the requisite minimum
qualification. It is also borne out by records that the selection
committee was given the impression it was considering the
candidates for the post of Deputy Manager (Security). There
may be some force in the contention raised by the petitioner that
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
the respondents have not satisfactorily stated the reason which
persuaded them to alter their position at a later stage and to
offer a lesser post of Senior Security Officer to the petitioner after
receiving the recommendation of the selection committee. But in
my view all these contentions raised by the petitioner pale into
insignificance not only because of the laches and delay on his
part in approaching this Court but also for the reason that he had
accepted the post without any demur.
12. As indicated earlier, petitioner had accepted the offer
on September 11, 2003 and had successfully completed the
probation in 2004. Thereafter, he had worked in the same post
for another one year. He preferred this writ petition only in
2005. By that time, two years had already elapsed. If the post
offered to him was carrying a lesser sale of pay as compared to
what he had been getting under his former employer, he need
not have accepted the new job or atleast he should have
approached this Court at that time.
13. The argument now advanced by the petitioner with
regard to the impropriety or irregularity in the manner in which
the company proceeded with the process of selection is vague.
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
Writing on the wall was so clear when Ext.P4 representation was
rejected by the respondents at the earliest point of time, even
before he accepted the offer.
14. It is also significant to note that in Ext.P4 what the
petitioner had requested was only for parity of pay scale, which
he had been drawing from his earlier employer. He did not insist
that he be given the post of Deputy Manager (Security). The
stand taken by the respondents cannot be said to be improper or
illegal, since the petitioner was offered only the post of Senior
Security Officer. He had accepted the said post. The respondents
were bound to pay only the salary which was attached to the said
post. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be heard
to say that the respondents were not justified in refusing to pay
him the same scale of salary, which his former employer had
been paying. Still worse, he cannot now make a demand that he
should have been given the post of Deputy Manager. Petitioner
did not admittedly challenge the stand taken by the respondents
that they were not prepared to accept the request of the
petitioner to give him the scale of pay which he was drawing
under his former employer. It is too late in the day for the
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
petitioner to contend for the position that the procedure adopted
by the respondents is not correct. Petitioner ought to have
challenged the procedure adopted by the respondents at the
earliest point of time. This not having been done, I am not
satisfied that this is a fit case to invoke the discretionary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Of course, it might have been desirable or proper for the
respondents to invite fresh applications from eligible candidates
for the post of Senior Security Officer, if they had found that
there were no eligible candidates with requisite qualifications to
hold the post of Deputy Manager (Security). Yet again I do not
propose to make any further comment on the said aspect at this
belated stage. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has been guilty
of laches on his part. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief as
prayed for.
The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE
OP NO.
WPC NO.26233/05 Page numbers
JUDGMENT
21st DECEMBER, 2006