In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Civil Review No.42 of 2009
Pramod Kumar and others.............................Petitioners
VERSUS
Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others.........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioners : Mr.Lalan Kumar Singh
For the B.C.C.K : Mr. Ananda Sen
8. 1.3.11
. The writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.5585 of 2007 was filed
on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners on
the post of Junior Overman and Mining Sirdar which posts had
been advertised to be filled up vide Advertisement No.1762 (NEE)
dated 6.1.2007.
As per the case of the petitioners, they having acquired
diploma in Mining and Mines were appointed as Trainee Apprentice
under the Apprentices Act, 1961in different Collieries of B.C.C.L.
After completion of the training and on holding a valid First Aid
Certificate as well as Gas Testing Certificate, they were granted
Overman Certificate of competency under the Coal Mines
Regulation, 1957. After several years of having Overman
Certificate of competency, an advertisement was made in the year
2007 calling for the applications for selection on the post of Junior
Overman and Mining Sirdar whereby maximum age was
prescribed as 30 years. As there was no provision for relaxation of
age for the trained apprentices nor the trained apprentices were
exempted from appearing in the written test, the petitioners made
representation in the light of a decision rendered in a case of
U.P.S.R.T.C vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berojgar
Sangh [1995 S.C.C (L & S) 387] praying therein to exempt them
from taking written test and also to relax age limit. When no
2
decision was taken the petitioners moved this Court for the relief
stated above.
In the said writ application, a counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the respondents wherein it was stated that as per the
provision of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957, Diploma Holders in
Mining are required to take practical training for a period of one
year in any Underground Mines for appearing in Overmanship
Certificate of Competency Examination conducted by the Director
General of Mines Safety, Dhanbad but the petitioners have no
requisite qualification and that posts advertised have already been
filled up whereas the petitioners had even not submitted their
applications in terms of the advertisement.
Considering the case of the parties, it was held in the order
dated 4.9.2008 that the petitioners do not have valid Overmanship
Certificate of Competency and that they never applied for the posts
which were advertised which got filled up and hence, the writ
application was dismissed.
As against that, L.P.A bearing no.391 of 2008 was preferred
wherein plea was taken that the Single Judge committed error of
record by holding that the petitioners do not hold valid Overmanship
Certificate. The Court did hold that if it is so, the petitioners should
have moved for review. That is how this review application has
been filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
all the petitioners do have valid Overmanship Certificates and those
certificates were granted only when the petitioners underwent
training and acquired the certificates of First Aid as well as Gas
Testing. But this Court vide order dated 4.9.2008 recorded the
finding otherwise and therefore, if that finding is not
altered/reviewed, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners
as there would always cloud over the Overmanship Certificate of
3
Competency of the petitioners. Those Overmanship certificates
and also valid First Aid and Gas Testing Certificates annexed with
this application would go to show that the Overmanship Certificate
had validly been issued by the authority.
It was further pointed out that as there was no stipulation
regarding relaxation of the age as stipulated under the
advertisement, the petitioners made representation before the
authority in the light of Supreme Court decision, referred to above,
for relaxation of the age and for exempting them from appearing in
the examination but the authority did not pass any order in this
respect. Under that situation, the petitioners had moved to this
Court but by the time the order was passed, the posts were filled up
but if that finding is not altered, the petitioners would not be entitled
to be appointed if the next vacancies are advertised. Therefore, the
finding to the effect that the petitioners do not have requisite
Overmanship Certificate warrants to be reviewed.
As against that, learned counsel appearing for the B.C.C.L
submits that it is not that only on the aforesaid ground the writ
petition was dismissed but the writ petition was dismissed also on
the other ground that the petitioners had never applied for the posts
and that the posts had already been filled up.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, I do
find that being persuaded with the statement made in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of B.C.C.L that though the petitioners do
have Overmanship certificate of Competency but they have not
undergone one year practical training in any underground mine, the
certificate could not be considered to be requisite qualification for
being appointed on the post of Overman, when they do not have
first aid and gas testing certificate, the order was passed that the
petitioners do not have requisite Overmanship Certificate of
Competency as the First Aid and Gas Testing Certificate had not
4
been annexed, though in reply to the counter affidavit, statement
had been made that they do possess First Aid and Gas Testing
Certificate. Those certificates have now been annexed with this
review application. Certificates of competency clearly show that the
petitioners have undergone practical training in different mines.
That apart, in terms of Clause 15 of Coal Mines Regulation 1957,
one cannot be allowed to be admitted as a candidate in the
examination held by the Board for grant of Overman and Sirdar
certificate. Meaning thereby that having First Aid and Gas Testing
Certificates are the pre-requisite of taking examination for grant of
Overmanship Certificate. The fact relating to petitioners having
Overmanship of Competency has also been accepted in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the B.C.C.L. Thus, it is quite
apparent that there was error in recording the finding that the
petitioners do not have requisite Overmanship Certificate of
Competency. Hence, the finding given in the writ application can
certainly be said to be error apparent and hence, it is set aside.
Still the petitioners are not entitled to relief claimed in the writ
application as the petitioners had not applied, pursuant to the
advertisement issued relating to appointment on the post of Junior
Overman and Mining Sirdar. This fact has even been admitted by
the petitioners in the writ application. That apart, the posts had
already been filled up. Therefore, in spite of holding that the
petitioners do have requisite Overmanship Certificate of
Competency, they are not entitled to relief claimed in the writ
application.
However, before parting with the order it would be worth
while to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of
U.P.S.R.T.C vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berojgar
Sangh (supra) after taking into account that the scheme of
apprentice training had been introduced to promote chances of
5
employment of educated unemployed persons, and if employers
would not provide employment to the qualified apprentices, the
same would amount to destruction of developed human resources
did hold that the following would be kept in mine while dealing with
the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion
of their training.
(1) “Other things being equal, a trained apprentice
should be given preference over direct recruits.
(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get
his name sponsored by any employment
exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of
India vs. N. Hargopal would permit this.
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee,
the same would be relaxed in accordance with
what is stated in this regard, if any, in the service
rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this
aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for
which the apprentice had undergone training
would be given.
(4) The training institute would maintain a list of the
persons trained year wise. The persons trained
earlier would be treated as senior to the persons
trained later. In between the trained apprentices,
preference shall be given to those who are
senior.”
It is needless to say that guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court would be adhered to in the matter of appointment of
apprentice trainees to the post of Junior Overman/ Mining Sirdar.
Accordingly, the review application is disposed of.
( R.R.Prasad, J.)
ND/