- (1.) Special leave in all the matters granted. The appellant, D. K. Sahni, began his service career in 1966 as an Assistant Mining Engineer and rose to the position of Chief Mining Engineer on his promotion to that post in 1980. The Board of Directors of the Company at its 143rd meeting on 22nd March, 1983 resolved to upgrade three posts of Chief Mining Engineers to the level of Deputy General Managers. At that point of time amongst the Chief Mining Engineers of the company, the appellant in the order of seniority ranked after (1) A. H. Dharmadhikari (2) S. Kumar (3) G. N. Misra and (4) T. N. Prasad. A high powered Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was appointed to select candidates from amongst Chief Mining Engineers for placement in the upgraded posts of Deputy General Managers. This Committee interviewed candidates and made its selection. Meanwhile A. H. Dharmadhikari was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager in the vacancy arising on the demise of K.V.P. Singh. Pursuant to the selection made by the DPC the appellant was promoted and appointed as Deputy General Manager in preference to his seniors. S. Kumar and others, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No. 2533 of 1983 challenging .the appointment of the appellant. However, in the meantime S. Kumar was promoted in due course as Deputy General Manager whereupon he withdrew the Writ Petition. The other two, G. N. Misra and T. N. Prasad represented to the Board pointing out that the appellant did not possess the requisite educational qualification for appointment as Chief Mining Engineer and consequently he could not be promoted to the next higher post of Deputy General Manager. That representation was rejected on the ground that the post of the Deputy General Manager being an ex-cadre post, the question of the appellant possessing the requisite educational qualification did not arise. Thereupon G. N. Misra filed another Writ Petition No. 2681 of 1984 under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the appellant's appointment. In that petition although the appellant was impleaded as a co-respondent along with the Managing Director and Chairman of the company he did not choose to enter an appearance, presumably because the company was expected to defend its action. Pending the hearing and disposal of the petition the company decided to restructure the Personal and Technical Department of the company. A. sub-committee was entrusted the task to undertake this exercise and select candidates from amongst the officers of the company to occupy higher posts that may be created. Accordingly one Pillai was appointed as General Manager (P) while the appellant was selected and appointed as General Manager (T). The Writ Petition No. 2681 of 1984 was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 18th July, 1989.
(2.) The High Court in its impugned judgment points out that the post of the Chief Mining Engineer was a promotional post to be filled in by selection. The minimum educational qualification for entry into the said promotional post was (i) a degree or equivalent diploma in mining from a recognised university or institute and (ii) First Class Mine Manager's certificate of competency under Metalliferous Mines Regulations. In addition the candidate was required to have at least 15 years experience of which 7 years in a responsible position in an underground mine e.g. Senior Mining Engineer, Deputy Production Manager or Deputy Planning and Designing Engineer. The High Court found that the appellant possessed the required certificate as well as experience but did not possess the educational qualification for entry into the promotional cadre of Chief Mining Engineers. The High Court rejected the management's content I on that the appellant was qualified to be appointed as the Deputy General Manager because the only requirement for that post was three years experience as Chief Mining Engineer which the appellant undoubtedly possessed. The High Court held : "If a person to be considered held a particular post, his entitlement to hold that post would also have to be considered if holding that post made him eligible for being considered to the promotional post of the Deputy General Manager." The High Court, therefore, held that since the appellant did not possess the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Chief Mining Engineer his entry into that cadre was not legal and consequently his further promotions to the post of Deputy General Manager and later General Manager (T) were legally unsustainable. The High Court also brushed aside the submission that since the -appellant's appointment as Chief Mining Engineer had never been challenged during the entire tenure in that office it should not be permitted to be challenged belatedly by pointing out that in the cadre of Chief Mining Engineers the appellant was junior to Mr. G. N. Misra and others and, therefore, there was no need for them to challenge hi appointment as such but now that their seniority and career advancement stand jeopardised, they have a cause of action an are, therefore, entitled to challenge the same Lastly the High Court held that since the appellant did not hold a diploma in Mining with a pass which was equivalent to a degree as per Schedule I he was not eligible for the post of Chief Mining Engineer and hence the exemption stated to have been granted by the Institute of Engineers (India) is of no con sequence whatsoever. On this line of reasoning the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the appointment of the appellant before us as Deputy Genera Manager and General Manager (T) and directed the authorities to pursue a fresh process of selection in accordance with the rules framed on 6/12th October, 1983. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
(3.) When the appellant before us learnt of the adverse order against him, he filed a Civil Application No. 2259 of 1989 in the said proceedings praying for a re-hearing on the ground that he had not been served with the notice of the Writ Petition and, therefore, had no opportunity to defend himself. The notice of the Writ Petition had been admittedly served on the Despatch Clerk in the office of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. The appellant contended (i) the said Despatch Clerk had no authority to accept the notice on his behalf and (ii) he had in any case failed to forward it to him. The High Court rejected this stand taken by the present appellant and held that the appellant was aware of the service of the notice to the Despatch Clerk and was in full know of the pendency of the Writ Petition and had in fact spoken about it to his colleagues. We have perused the order of the High Court on the said application and we are in complete agreement with the High Court on the view it had taken and the consequential order it passed rejecting the application. It is unfortunate that the present appellant made certain inaccurate and untenable averments in the application to secure a rehearing.;