Chandra Bhushan Sood vs Coal India Ltd. And Ors. on 4 March, 2004

Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Bhushan Sood vs Coal India Ltd. And Ors. on 4 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004 (2) JCR 28 Jhr
Author: A Sahay
Bench: A Sahay


JUDGMENT

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion afresh to the post of Executive Grade-M-1 and to give an appropriate marking on the basis of ACR as awarded by the Project Officer and General Manager who were the immediate Controlling Authority of the petitioner after ignoring the action of the Directors in reducing the ratings of ACR of the petitioner and to quash the order dated 27.12.1995 as contained in An-nexure-1 to the writ application whereby, the ratings of the ACR of the petitioner was reduced.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Executive Trainee on 4.11.1978 and then he was promoted on 22.2.1980 as Under Manager (Executive Grade E-2) thereafter he got promotion of E-3 Grade on 10.1.1985, and then to E-4 and E-5 Grade on 31.8.1988 and 30.7.1992 respectively.

3. It Is stated by the petitioner that he was qualified for the post of M-1 Grade and in the year 1992-93, the Project Officer and the General Manager rated him to be outstanding, similarly for the year 1993-94 his ACR was excellent and also for the year 1994-95 his ACR was rated excellent by the Project Officer and the General Manager.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that promotion to M-1 Grade is made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority for which hundred marks are fixed. Out of which 26 marks has been fixed for Interview, 20 marks for Experience and 54 marks for 3 years ACR. The petitioner being the senior most Executive, called for Interview for promotion to M-l Grade on 8.12.1985 in which he was participated. It is alleged by the petitioner that subsequently he came to know that the Directors of Coal India sitting at Calcutta had reduced his ratings in the ACR for the year 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, prior to his Interview, with mala fide intention and to help other juniors. It is alleged that because of the arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, many juniors to the petitioner were promoted while the petitioner was left out and then he made a representation on 1.3.1996 but no order was passed by the respondents.

5. On the other hand, the case of respondents is that though the immediate controlling authority of the petitioner were the Project Officer and the General Manager but for the Executives in E-5 Grade, the final Reviewing authority is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the concerned subsidiary Company and the Directors of Coal India Ltd. have nothing to do in the matter and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner to that effect is not correct. It is further said that as per the existing rules, the ACR of the petitioner who was in E-5 Grade was reviewed finally by the Chair-man-cum-Managing Director of the Company and accordingly, rating regarding performance of the petitioner was finally given by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and on the basis of the final ratings awarded by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the marks were allotted by the Selection-cum-Departmental Promotion Committee. Since the petitioner did not qualify in the, Interview conducted by the Selection-cum-Departmental Promotion Committee for his promotion to M-1 Grade. It is said that though the other Executives who appeared in the Departmental Promotion Committee may be the junior to the petitioner but were found fit for promotion to M-l Grade and, therefore, were given promotion to M-l Grade and as such they finally became senior to the petitioner. It is further said that the rating of the petitioner for reviewing his ACR for the period of 1993-94 was placed before the Moderation Committee along with others and the Moderation Committee also did not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for upgrading the ratings in his ACR, which was also communicated to the petitioner.

6. From the averments made in the writ application, I find that there is no specific allegation of mala fide has been pleaded against any particular authority, rather a very vague allegation has been made by the petitioner that the Director sitting at Calcutta have reduced the rating of the petitioner with mala fide intention to help the juniors. On this vague statement, no mala fide intention can be inferred. Whereas, as it appears that the Directors had nothing to do in the matter and it was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director who was the final Reviewing authority of the ACRs of the Executive of the E-5 Grade and he reduced the rating of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director had any mala fide intention against the petitioners. The petitioner appeared before the Selection-cum-Departmental Promotion Committee and he was not found fit for promotion on the basis of marks obtained by him, awarded by the Selection-cum-Departmental Promotion Committee.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the petitioner has totally failed to make out a case for any interference by this Court and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. No costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *