MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Devendra Kumar Saraswat seeking writ of mandamus declaring Rule 6 of the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (Recruitment and Promotion of Executives) Rules, 1991 (for shot, 'the Rules of 1991') to be ultra vires the Constitution of India, with a direction to the respondent - Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (for short, 'the respondent Company'). Further prayer is made for a direction to the respondents to place the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for selection on the post of Assistant Manager (P&A) (E-1 Category), if any passed, and after taking it on the record, the same may be quashed and set aside. Further direction is sought that the respondent Company be required to treat the petitioner eligible for the post of Assistant Manager (P&A) (E-1 Category) and it be further directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the said post.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent Company issued an advertisement for selection on the post of Assistant Manager (P&A) (E-1 Category) from in-service candidates. The petitioner, being in-service candidate, was eligible for that post. He applied for the same. The respondent Company rejected his candidature under the garb of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1991 stating that only the candidate of immediate lower post can apply for the post of Assistant Manager (P&A) (E-1 Category) and as the petitioner is working on the post of Senior Helper (Stagnation), which is the post of W-4 category, he was not eligible to apply for the said post. The respondent Company issued an advertisement on 24.02.2014 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Manager (E-1 Category) for different streams including Personal and Administration (P&A) category. In all six posts of P&A (E-1 Category) were advertised. The employees working on the immediate lower post in the respondent Company and possessing the requisite qualification were also eligible to apply for the said post through proper channel. The service conditions governing the post of Assistant Manager (E-1 Category) was under the Rules of 1991.
(3.) Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that there can be no justification for debarring the petitioner, who is an in-service candidates of the respondent Company, to compete for appointment on the post of Assistant Manager. The learned counsel referred to Clause 7 of the advertisement, which, inter-alia, provides that those employed in Government/Semi-Govt./Public Sector Organization should apply through proper channel or submit NOC of the concerned department/organization at the time of interview, in the absence of which their candidature is liable to be cancelled. It is submitted that when the employees of the Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector Organization have been conferred with eligibility to apply against any of the posts regardless of the status and pay scale, which should be many stages higher than the post applied by them, there is no rational or intelligible differentia by restraining the eligibility for appointment by direct recruitment on the own employees of the respondent Company for the next higher post only. The aforesaid Rule does not qualify the test of reasonable classification as the in-service candidates of the respondent Company or of any Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector Organization, particularly constitute a single homogeneous group and there is no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by restricting eligibility of the own employees of the respondent Company to the next higher post and at the same time by providing opportunity to the employees of the Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector Organization of course through proper channel against any post.;