RAMANUJ PRASADversusCOAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

A                            RAMANUJ PRASAD
                                       V.

                        COAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

                            SEPTEMBER 17, 2003
B
                   [V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.]

         Service Law:

C         Promotion-Person discharging his duties on a higher post-Later,
    claiming promotion to the said post-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd-
    Drajisman-Promoted to Executive Cadre as Public Relation Officer in
    E-2 Grade-Later assuming charge of Public Relation Manager in E-5
    Grade-Meanwhile qualifications prescribed for promotion from Non-
D   Executive Cadre to Executive Cadre-Claim for promotion to E-5 grade
    or in the alternative for regularization in the E-5 grade-Allowed by
    Single Judge but rejected by Division Bench of High Court-Held, the
    employee was not promoted to the post of Public Relation Manager-He
    began to discharge his duties in the said post-Jn absence of any order
E   ofpromotion to the post of Public Relation Manager, passed in his favour,
    he by no stretch of imagination was entitled theretrr-He did not have any
    legal right to be promoted to the post of Public Relation Manager which
    was in E-5 grade -The writ petition was misconceived and has rightly
    been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.                     r
F        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2059 of
    2002.

         From the Judgment and order dated 17.7.2001 of the Calcutta High
    Court in A.P.O.T. 827 of2000 in G.A. No. 4587 of2000 in W.P. No. 2012
G   of 1997.

         S.B. Upadhyay for the Appellant.

         Mukul Rohtagi Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Kunud Lata Das
H and Saurabh Kirpal for the respondents.                                       '
                                      898
                  RAMANUJ PRASAD v. COAL INDIA                             899

     The following Order of the Court was delivered :                             A
     Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short the 'BCCL') is a subsidiary
company of Coal India Limited. On 27th March, I 975, the appellant was
appointed in BCCL as a Draftsman. It is alleged that subsequently on 20th
Novemnber, 1987, the appellant was promoted to Executive cadre as Public B
Relation Officer in E-2 Grade. On 9th May, 1990, the appellant took charge
of the office of Public Relations Manager, which was of E-5 Grade.

      On 20th January, 1993, a circular was issued providing therein that
for promotion from Non-executive cadre to the Executive cadre in public C
relations office, the candidate must possess a Post Graduate Degree/
Diploma in Journalism/Public Relations and also to pass the qualifying
examination. The appellant was not subsequently promoted allegedly on
the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification.

                                                                                  D
      It is this stage the appellant herein filed a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution before the Calcutta high Court for issuing a
direction to the respondents herein to promote him to E-5 Grade and in
the alternative to regularise his services in the said Grade.

      A learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that since E
the appellant herein was working on the post of E-5 Grade for the last 10
years, his services are liable to be regularised. Consequently, the writ
petition was allowed and the order to that effect was issued to the
respondents. The respondents thereafter preferred a Letters Patent Appeal
before the High Court and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, F
reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the
appeal was allowed. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has come
in appeal before us.

      Learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the threshold, argued G
that since the appellant was promoted to E-2 Grade in the year 1987, the
circular dated 20th January, 1993 was not applicable as the same provided
only for promotion from Non-Executive cadre to the Executive cadre. After
hearing the learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to entertain
this argument at this stage for the reason that the appellant's case before H
    900                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the High Court was that he should be promoted to E-5 Grade, or in the
    alternative his services be regularised therein.

         It is not in dispute that the terms and conditions of service of the
    appellant are governed by Common Coal Cadre issued by Coal India Ltd.
B   which is the holding company. The relevant provisions of the said
    Common Coal Cadre are as under :

                  "Clause 4.1 : "All promotions from one executive grade to
             another will be on the basis of the recommendations of the duly
             constituted Department Promotion Committee (DCP).
c
             ELIGIBILITY NORMS FOR PROMOTION

                  4.7(a). The promotion of departmental executives will be
             step-by-step according to the channel of promotion indicated in
D            the cadre schemes placed at Appendix IV(2) of the Common Coal
             Cadre and modified from time to time.

             (b) The eligibility of executives for consideration for promotion
             shall be determined on the basis of minimum qualification and
             minimum period of service in a particular grade as indicated in
E            the respective cadre schemes placed at Appendix IV(2) of the
             common coal cadre and should be subject to the following :

             ( i) xxxx            xxxx

F            (ii) Promotion orders of the executives will be issued on receipt
             of vigilance, departmental and safety clearance in respect of
             Mining E&M and Excavation disciplines and vigilance and
             departmental clearance in respect of other disciplines.

             (iii) xxxx            xxxx
G
             (iv) xxxx             xxxx

             (c) Unless otherwise stipulated in the relevant cadre scheme
             executive has to put in a minimum of three years service in a
H            particular grade before he becomes eligible for consideration for   '
          RAMANUJ PRASAD v. COAL INDIA                        901
promotion to the next higher grade.                                  A
(d)     xxxx          xxxx

(e)     xxxx         xxxx
                                                                     B
(f) Any relaxation, either in the minimum length of service or
minimum qualification shall be only with the specific written
approval of the cadre controlling authority i.e. Chairman CIL.

(g)     xxxx         xxxx
                                                                     c
(h)     xxxx         xxxx

ACTING OFFICIATING ARRANGEMENT IN RESPECT OF
EXECUTIVE POSITIONS
                                                                     D
9. I.   xxxx          xxxx

9.2.    xxxx          xxxx

9.3.    xxxx          xxxx                                           E

9.4. Temporary acting arrangements made will not confer any
claim for promotion.

9.5. the period of 'Acting' will not count towards eligibility for   F
promotion to the next higher level.

9.6 Quantum of Acting Allowance

     The amount of acting allowance payable to an employee G
acting in a higher post shall not exceed 20% of his pay or the pay
to which he would be entitled to in case of promotion to the higher
post, whichever is lower.

9.7     xxxx          xx xx                                          H
    902                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         It is not in dispute that the appellant was not promoted to the post
    of Public Relations Manager. Shri R.N. Dwivedi who held the said post
    was asked to hand over the charge to the appellant. Pursuant to and in
    furtherance whereof he began discharging his duties in the said post. In
    absence of any order of promotion passed in favour of the appellant to the
B   post of Public Relations Manager, he by no stretch of imagination was
    entitled thereto. He did not have any legal right to continue to hold the said
    post and no writ of mandamus therefor could be issued. It appears that
    before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court an additional
    affidavit was filed by the respondents herein: the material portion whereof
C   is as under :

             "On 9.5.1990 when Mr. Dwivedi was directed to hand over
             charge of his office to the writ petition, the writ petitioner was an
             E-2 Grade Officer. His designation was Public Relations Officer.
             By an office order dated 2.8.1991 the writ petitioner was promoted
D            to the post of Senior Public Relations Officer in E-3 Grade. After
             completion of three years of service in E-3 Grade, the case of the
             writ petitioner was considered by the D.P.C. for promotion in the
             'higher Grade. The meeting of the D.P.C. was held on 20.7.1995.
             The writ peitioner was however not recommended for promotion
E            from E-3 to E-4 Grade due to lack of qualification. Subsequently,
             in the meeting held on 22/23rd May, 1996 the case of the writ
             petitioner again came up for consideration for promotion from E-
             3 Grade to E-4 Grade but the same did not meet any fruitful result.
             So was the case with the writ petition in the meeting of the D.P.C.
F            held on 2/3rd December, 1997. No meeting of the D.P.C. was held
             between 1998 and 1999. Subsequently decision for relaxation of
             qualification was taken in the meetings dated 5.5.1999 and
             7 .5.1999 for those candidates who have completed 5 years of
             service in their existing Grade and have bagged three 'excellent'
G            ratings in the Executive Evaluation Report. The case of the writ
             petition was also considered and relaxation was granted. On the
             basis of such relaxation the D.P.C. met on 20/2lst January, 2000
             and recommended the case of the writ petition for promotion from
             E-3 Grade to E-4 Grade which however has not been made
H            available to the writ petition due to pendency of this proceedings."
                 RAMANUJ PRASAD v. COAL INDIA                         903
     The contention of the appellant at best could have been that having A
regard to the fact that the purpo1ted circular letter dated 20th January, 1993
was not applicable in his case, the Departmental Promotion Committee
should have considered his case for promotion to E-4 Grade in the year
1995. He did not say so. As the appellant did not have any legal right to
be promoted to the post of Public Relations Manager which is in E-5 Grade, B
the writ petition was misconceived and has rightly been dismissed by the
High Court. This appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.

R.P.                                                   Appeal dismissed.