Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS writ has been filed for quashing the part of the circular Annexure -6 and Annexure -9 issued by the respondent No. 5 which without giving an opportunity to the qualified and eligible persons (petitioners) has been issued in most arbitrary and fanciful manner and also for a mandamus commanding upon the respondents to invite the petitioners for appointment on the post of E -O grade and Jr. Manager (F&A).
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners (six in number) joined the Bokaro Steel Plant B.S. City as Junior Trainee, Operator, Senior Operator, Junior Trainee in Water Supply Department, JR T.O.T. and Junior Trainee in the years 1983, 1973, 1990, 1982, 1990 and 1982 respectively. According to them as per the circular for promotion to executive cadre from non -executive cadre in finance discipline they are eligible for being considered. According to Rules 6.2.5 (Annexure -3) the employee having a qualification of CA/ICWA are not to be considered for promotion to E -O rather they are to be considered for the post of E1 (Finance) along with CA/ICWA candidates from open market. The departmental examinations were held in pursuance to Annexure -1, the old departmental promotion policy, and petitioners were declared to be successful (Annexure -4 to Annexure -4/1), The further case of the petitioner is that except Bokaro Steel Plant other units of SAIL like Bhilai Steel Plant, Rourekala Steel Plant etc. have issued the promotion order of the employees who had been declared successful in the previous departmental examination from 30.6.2000. Then on 19.7.2000 the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant issued an internal circular through their personal department Annexure -6 (Impugned annexure) for the purposes of appointing. Jr. Executive (F&A) in the grade of (E -O) and the qualification required is. Graduates from recognized university/institution, ICWA/CA from recognized institution. This internal circular does not invite petitioners who have cleared the departmental examinations whereas the persons having CA/ICWA qualification who are not at all entitled for the E -O grade in view of 1.7.5. and 6.2.5, of the promotional policy are to be considered. Such candidates were also called for interview on 11.12.2000 but the final result has not been published pursuant thereto. Thereafter the petitioners filed joint representation Annexure -7 series but it appears, that was not disposed of, thereafter the petitioner filed title suit No. 53 of 2000 in the Court of Munsif, Bokaro challenging the impugned circular (Annexure -6) and ultimately with drew the suit. Further the Corporate office of SAIL, issued an internal circular dated 11.10.2000 and once again considered the cases of CA/ICWA internal candidates alongwith candidates from open market. According to the petitioner it is gross denial of the right of the petitioner (impugned annexure). Again the petitioners made joint representation Annexure -10 to the Managing Director, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant (no averment has been made whether this representation has been disposed of or not.) The respondent appeared and filed counter affidavit. The first counter affidavit was filed on 29.3.200,1. The case of the respondent as per this counter affidavit is that the internal circular dated 19.7.2000 was issued by Bokaro Steel Plant for specific purpose of appointing a few qualified Cost Accounts as Junior Executive (F&A) in E -O grade to strengthen the front line executive positions due to high rate of turnover amongst the qualified professional in junior Cadre in Finance & Accounts Department and there is no intention of the Management to depart from the existing promotion policy of not executive to executive cadre in Finance & Account Department. Thus the stand taken in the first counter affidavit is that the Management intended to appoint qualified and experienced personnel having CA/ICWA qualification and it is a matter of policy. With regard to the claim of the petitioner it was asserted in para 11 of the counter affidavit that case of their promotion would be considered by the DPC as and when the DPC meets in future. The other allegation of arbitrariness etc. were denied and it was further averred that the promotion form non executive to executive is not applicable, those promotion having the qualification of CA/ICWA. The maintainability of writ was attacked by the respondents on the ground that the petitioners had filed a title suit and the interim order of injunction was allowed in their favour which was subsequently after hearing recalled and ultimately the title suit was allowed to be withdrawn with no liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit (Annexure -A).
(3.) THE petitioners gave a reply to the averment made in the counter affidavit and in fact repeated the same facts though in slightly changed language. Thereafter one supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the respondent and in paragraph 3 it was stated that in cadre E -O in finance discipline 16 persons have been appointed directly including five through internal Circular, thus the proportion of 50:50 with respect to the departmental candidates vis -a -vis the direct recruits in Finance Discipline in E -O Grade is heavily tilted in favour of the Non - Executive internal candidates in Finance Discipline and the Quota of direct recruit in Finance Discipline is to be filed up because 19 Non -Executives in the year 1994 and 34 Non -Executives in the year 1999 were promoted to E -O Grade. Again the supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the respondent on 17.02.2003 annexing the Annexure -A issued by the Senior Manager (Recruitment) of Corporate Office, Steel Authority of India Limited, The petitioners have alleged arbitrariness of the respondents in issuing the impugned annexure and the respondents have denied these impugned annexures on the ground that in order to achieve better man power in the concern this circular/advertisement has been issued and this is all reasonable and therefore can not be attacked under Article 14 of the Constitution with a further attack on the maintainability of the writ itself on the ground of applicability of Order XXIII, Rule 2, CPC.;