Kailash Rajak Vs. Mines and Geology - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 896 of 2014 Kailash   Rajak,   son   of   Late   Mahadeo   Rajak,   resident   of   village  Kauakol,   PO&PS­Kauakol,   District­Nawada   (Bihar),   presently  posted as Assistant Mining Officer, Jamtara, District­Jamtara  ...   ...  Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary,  Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand at  Nepal House, Doranda, PO&PS­Doranda, District­Ranchi 2. The Director of Mines, Government of Jharkhand at Nepal  House, Doranda, PO&PS­Doranda, District­Ranchi           ... ... Respondents ----------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner    : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate    Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents  : Mr. Binod Singh, S.C. (L&C) 10/29.11.2016 The   petitioner,   a   1984   appointee   on   the   post   of  Assistant Mining Officer, claims promotion to the post of District  Mining Officer and also in the rank of Deputy Director, Mines.  Contending   that   Jharkhand   Mining   Engineering   Service   Rules,  2011 would not take away the vested right for promotion which  accrued before 2011 Rules became effective, the petitioner has  questioned the legality of the impugned order dated 18.12.2013.

2.        Heard.

3.        The brief facts narrated in the writ petition are, that  after   his   appointment   on   26.07.1984   on   the   post   of   Assistant  Mining Officer the petitioner was made Incharge­District Mining  Officer   vide   Notification   dated   11.12.1990   and   Departmental  Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting held on 04.11.1999  forwarded   a   recommendation   for   his   promotion   w.e.f.  01.10.1992   to   the   post   of   District   Mining   Officer,   however,  subject   to   concurrence   of   the   Department   of   Personnel,   which  was not granted. After the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of  Bihar,   in   the   DPC   held   on   06.07.2002,   in   view   of   pending  criminal case for offence under Section 366A/34 IPC, promotion  to   the   petitioner   was   again   kept   pending.   The   petitioner   has  2 pleaded that vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2004 he was  acquitted from criminal charges in S.C. Case No. 60 of 2000, still,  he was not granted promotion from due date. It is pleaded that  the   Principal   Secretary,   Department   of   Mines   and   Geology,  Government of Bihar in its letter dated 10.06.2009 forwarded a  recommendation for promotion of six Assistant Mining Officers  on the post of District Mining Officer, and in the said letter the  petitioner was shown the senior most Assistant Mining Officer at  Sl. No. 1. Not only that, in the seniority list of Assistant Mining  Officer  prepared by the State of Jharkhand also the petitioner  has   been   shown   senior­most   Assistant   Mining   Officer   in  SC category, however, he was deprived of promotion without any  speaking   order.   Constrained,   he   approached   this   Court   in  W.P.(S) No. 3507 of 2010 for promotion on the post of District  Mining Officer and for further promotion in the rank of Deputy  Director   of   Mines   with   all   consequential   benefits.     The   writ  petition was disposed of on 26.02.2013, with a direction to the  Principal   Secretary,   Department   of   Mines   and   Geology,  Government   of   Jharkhand   to   pass   a   speaking   order   on  petitioner’s  claim  for  promotion.  It  is  order dated  18.12.2013,  whereby   petitioner’s   claim   for   promotion   has   been   declined,  which has been assailed in the writ petition.

4.        The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to  recommendations of DPC dated 04.11.1999 and 06.07.2002 and  the recommendation of the Government of Bihar to contend that  the petitioner cannot be denied promotion on the ground that  under 2011 Rules essential technical qualification for the post of  Assistant Mining Officer has been prescribed a degree in Mining  Engineering,   which   was   not   the   essential   qualification   for  appointment   to   the  post  of   Assistant  Mining  Officer  when  the  petitioner was appointed in the year, 1984. It is contended that  the petitioner has a vested right to claim promotion on the basis  of   the   earlier   recommendations   of   DPC.   Per­contra,   Mr.   Binod  3 Singh,   the   learned   State   counsel   contends   that   the   previous  recommendations for promotion of the petitioner were not given  effect on account of his complicity in a criminal case, and when  his case was considered by the Principal Secretary, Department of  Mines by that time 2011 Rules were enforced and while so, no  promotion   contrary   to   the   extant   rules   can   be   granted.   It   is  further   contended   that   promotion   of   eligible   Assistant   Mining  Officers   was   notified   through   Notification   dated   02.12.2010,  however,   the   said   notification   was   never   challenged   by   the  petitioner.  5.      Before adverting to the rival contentions, it needs to be  recorded that there were 20 sanctioned posts of District Mining  Officers   in   the   Directorate   of   Mines,   Government   of   Bihar.  Departmental letter dated 22.01.1979 provided that 50% post of  District   Mining   Officers   shall   be   filled   up   through   direct  recruitment   and   50%   post   through   promotion   from   Assistant  Mining Officer. The State of Bihar accepted the recommendations  of 5th Pay Commission and vide memo dated 08.02.1999 issued  by   the   Finance   Department   conditions   for   promotion   and  qualifications were prescribed. A degree in Mining Engineering,  w.e.f. 08.02.1999, was prescribed as the minimum qualification  for  the   post  of  Assistant Mining Officer. The petitioner do not  possess a degree in Mining Engineering is an admitted position.  The respondent­State has pleaded that educational and technical  qualifications cannot be compromised in the public interest.  6.           Under Jharkhand Mining Engineering Service Rules,  2011,   there   are   5   posts   in   the   Mining   Engineering   Cadre   viz;  (i)   Director,   Mines   (ii)   Additional   Director,   Mines   (iii)   Deputy  Director,   Mines   (iv)   District   Mining   Officer   (Class­I),   and  (v) Assistant Mining Officer (Class­II). Appointment to the posts  of Assistant Mining Officer (Class­II) and District Mining Officer  (Class­I) shall be through direct recruitment and by promotion of  officers   already   in   Government   service.   Procedure   for  4 recruitment by promotion has been dealt with in Rule 15 under  Part­VI.   In   so   far   as,   promotion   to  the   post   of   District   Mining  Officer is concerned, Rules 15(2) and 15(3) provides as under :

15. 2) “The quota for the recruitment by promotion to   the   post   of   District   Mining   Officer   from   the   post   of   Assistant   Mining   Officer   shall   be   50%   of   the   total   sanctioned strength of the District Mining Officer. For   direct recruitment of District Mining Officer, half of the   positions   shall   be   filled   through   open   examination   while   the   other   half   shall   be   filled   through   limited   examination   held   by   the   Commission   from   among   AMOs having service of 5 years or more, i.e., 25% of   the  posts   will   be  filled  by   way  of open  examination   and  25%  will  be filled  through  limited  examination   held by Commission.                  Provided that in case of non­availability of   officer   for   promotion   to   the   post   of   District   Mining   Officer   the   remaining   quota   shall   be   transferred   to   direct   recruitment   of   District   Mining   Officer   as   per   Part­V. 15(3)  Promotion to the post of Deputy Director Mines   and   above   shall   be   given   to   only   those   promoted   officers   who   have   acquired   a   degree   in   mining   engineering or AMIE in mining engineering.”

7.          A con­joint reading of sub­Rule 2 and sub­Rule 3 to  Rule 15 would make it clear that for promotion to the post of  District Mining Officer from the post of Assistant Mining Officer  requirement is 5 years' service as Assistant Mining Officer and it  shall   be   filled   up   through   limited   examination   held   by   the  Jharkhand  Public  Service  Commission.  Rule  7  merely  provides  that no person shall be directly appointed to the post of Assistant  Mining   Officer   and   District   Mining   Officer   unless,   he   holds   a  degree   in   Mining   Engineering.   Thus,   promotion   of   Assistant  Mining   Officers,   who   were   appointed   before   2011   Rules   were  enforced   and   who   do   not   possess   a   degree   in   Mining  Engineering,   to   the   post   of   District   Mining   Officer   through  limited examination on prescribed quota seats for promotion is  5 not   prohibited   rather,   prescribed.   Only   restriction   under   2011  Rules is for direct appointment on the post of Assistant Mining  Officer and District Mining Officer, without a degree in Mining  Engineering. Sub­Rule 3 to Rule 15 further clarifies the position  by   providing   that   promotion   to   the   post   of   Deputy   Director,  Mines and above shall be given to only those promoted officers  who have acquired a degree in Mining Engineering or AMIE in  Mining   Engineering.   2011   Rules   nowhere   provides   that   for  promotion to the post of District Mining Officer, Assistant Mining  Officers appointed prior to enforcement of the Rules must posses  a degree in Mining Engineering. A bare reading of the impugned  order   dated   18.12.2013   would   also   reveal   that   claim   of   the  petitioner for promotion to the post of District Mining Officer has  been   declined   on   the   ground   that   no   post   of   District   Mining  Officer under SC category was available. The contention raised  by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been  denied promotion to the post of District Mining Officer on the  basis  of  qualification  prescribed under 2011 Rules, is factually  incorrect. In the counter­affidavit, however, it has been pleaded  that promotion to the post of District Mining Officer has been  granted  only  to those  Assistant Mining Officers who possess a  degree in Mining Engineering. If that was the reason for denying  promotion to the petitioner in the year 2010, it must be held that  he was denied promotion illegally. However, this issue no longer  remains   significant,   as   he   has   already   superannuated   from  service   and   ACP   benefits   for   the   promotional   post   of   District  Mining Officer has been granted to him. Moreover, the petitioner  never   challenged   Notification   dated   02.12.2010   by   which  promotion to the post of District Mining Officers was granted.

8.         The   next   question   is,   whether   the   petitioner   can   be  denied promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Mines on the  ground that he does not possess a degree in Mining Engineering.  6 9.          In “State of J&K. vs. Shiv Ram Sharma” (1999) 3 SCC   653, a plea was raised that when the appointees had joined the  service, the requirement of passing Matriculation was not needed  for promotion, however, subsequently for promotion to a higher  grade   Matriculation   was   made   a   necessary   qualification.   The  Supreme   Court   held   that   there   is   no   indefeasible   right   in   the  appointees   to   claim   promotion   to   a   higher   grade   to   which  qualification   could   be   prescribed   and   it   also   cannot   be  guaranteed   that   the   rules   framed   by   the   Government   would  always be favourable to them. In “Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of   India” AIR 1967 (1) SC 1889, it has been held that rights and  obligations in respect of an employment are not determined by  the   consent   of   the   appointees,   but   by   a   statute   and   statutory  rights   may   be   framed   and   altered   unilaterally   by   the  Government.   No   doubt,   it   has   been   held   that   a   vested   right  cannot be taken away by an amendment in the rules, however, it  is   equally   true   that   there   is   no   vested   right   for   promotion.  Whether claim for promotion to a higher grade had matured or  not, has to be examined in the facts of the case and on the basis  of   vacancy   which   had   arisen.   The   petitioner   who   was   not  promoted   to   the   post   of   District   Mining   Officer   cannot   claim  promotion   in   the   rank  of  Deputy  Director,  Mines,  only  on  the  basis of his continuous service on the post of Assistant Mining  Officer   and/or   District   Mining   Officer   in   officiating   capacity.  Under Rule 18, 5 years' continuous service on the post of District  Mining Officer is necessary for promotion to the post of Deputy  Director,   Mines,   which   qualification   the   petitioner   does   not  possess.   Moreover,   promotion   is   granted   with   due   regard   to  merit,   seniority   in   service,   reservation   notification   and   roster  decided by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms  and   Rajbhasha   and   it   is   made   on   recommendation   of   the  Departmental   Promotion   Committee.   Petitioner’s   case   for  promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Mines did not mature,  7 as   he   was   not   confirmed   as   District   Mining   Officer   on   a  sanctioned vacant post.  10.        When considered claim of the petitioner, in the light of  the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and  accordingly, it is dismissed.    (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/­