Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1804/1999 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1804 of 1999
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7732 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
CHUDASMA
JAYRAJ SINGH & 12 - Appellant(s)
Versus
O
N G C LTD & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MUKUL SINHA for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 13.
MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
1,
DELETED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 11/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have been non-suited
by learned Single Judge on two grounds. One that the petitioners-
appellants were not in-house candidates and therefore the Rule which
is pressed into service which was promulgated by the Central
Government on 1.4.1999 would not cover the case of the appellants
because the recruitment which was under question was not any direct
recruitment and it was a recruitment which was from the candidates
who were in-house candidates. The second ground on which learned
Single Judge has non-suited the petitioners is that they were
overaged because the Notification of the Central Government was of
1.4.1999. However, the same was adopted by the O.N.G.C. on subsequent
date. Learned Single Judge has said that the process of recruitment
of the persons was initiated prior to 1.4.1999 and therefore the
Rules will not apply. On these two grounds, learned Single Judge has
non-suited the petitioners- appellants.
Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that both
the grounds on which learned Single Judge has non-suited the
petitioners are unsustainable. The Rules came into force on 1.4.1999.
As the Rules say that they would apply to public undertaking, there
is no question of being not applied by ONGC as has been stated by the
ONGC because they should apply when they were promulgated. In any
case the affidavit is not specific and is evasive. That being the
position, it should be deemed that the Rules came into force on
1.4.1999 and they were bound to follow
that Rule. The call letter which was issued for the recruitment in
question dated 6.8.1999. Therefore, this should be the date which
should be considered to be the date on which the Rules should have
been considered to be in operation. Therefore, the findings of
learned Single Judge are not sustainable. As regards second ground,
learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the candidate
cannot be considered to be inhouse candidate because he was not in
service of the ONGC. Therefore, he cannot be considered to be inhouse
candidate. Therefore, the findings of learned Single Judge is
incorrect.
Replying
to the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the O.N.G.C. has
submitted that in the affidavit O.N.G.C. has clearly stated that the
process of selection has been initiated prior to 1.4.1999. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the process has not been initiated
prior to 1.4.1999. According to the petitioners themselves when the
process is initiated the names are called from the T.T.I. (Technical
Training Institute) and it is that date which should be the date
when the names are being called for the process of selection and that
has been initiated prior to 1.4.1999 because the candidates were
called from T.T.I., since the requisition for list of eligible
candidates was sent for and thereafter the list was sent by T.T.I.
to ONGC. Thereafter, call letters were issued. The process of
selection according to the appellants as suggested, it was initiated
prior to 1.4.1999 is a question which is to be seriously considered
because any Rule which came into force after 1.4.1999 cannot be
applied to such selection. Further the adoption of the Rules,
according to ONGC, is that they adopted the Rules on 25.8.1999 and
that should be the date from which the Rules will apply i.e.
25.8.1999 and the call letters which is the basis of the petition was
issued on 6.8.1999. This letter does not concern the petitioners and
cannot be considered to be one which belongs to the category of the
petitioners. It cannot, therefore, be said that it is in favour of
the petitioners. In any case the question of this consideration has
now become redundant because two years of relaxation even if
considered today for recruitment would become a position where the
petitioners would be out of consideration. By efflux of time, they
have become overaged and at this belated stage would impair the
efficiency of service.
As
regards the question of inhouse, the list which was sent by T.T.I.
was considered for selection. That being the closed selection
candidates who are trained T.T.I. would make them inhouse candidates.
In that view of the matter, the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants fail and the order of learned Single Judge is sustainable.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions, we are
of the considered opinion that it was not direct recruitment which
was available to all trainee of other technical institute. This was
only limited to the trainees of T.T.I. That being the position when
the training is limited to a particular institute belonging to
O.N.G.C. it can be considered an inhouse competition. Rules have
validly been applied by learned Single Judge and considering that
this was an inhouse selection and relaxation of age would not be
available to the appellants. Further since the Rules were adopted by
ONGC as alleged on 25.8.1999 and the process of selection started
prior to 1.4.1999 it cannot be said that learned Single Judge has
erred in coming to the conclusion that the Rules would not be
governing the case of the appellants. In any case for the
circumstances beyond everybody’s control for 11 years this litigation
has remained pending and two years’ age relaxation would not be of
any consequence. The employees would not get the benefit of age
relaxation. Therefore also we feel no relief can be granted to the
employees. In that view of the matter, the appeal is meritless and
hence dismissed.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J)
(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J)
(pkn)
Top