Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD both sides. The claim of the petitioner is that he was eligible for being promoted to E2 cadre, but he was not given promotion to that post on the sole ground that he was not possessing the three years diploma in Electronics/ Telecommunication/Instrumentation.
(2.) THE positive case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as technical supervisor grade A on 1.9.1976 in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and after getting advanced diploma in mine instrumentation and telecommunication (duration of 1 year) from Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, was promoted in E -1. At the relevant time when the case for promotion of the petitioner was not considered though he was having requisite qualification of one year diploma in mine electronics and telecommunication but not having a three years diploma. Consequently, his case was not considered. In this regard Annexure -1/1 is relevant, which reads as follows : "Advance Diploma in Mining 'Electronics of at least one year duration for those having 3 years diploma in Electronics/ Telecommunication/ Instrumentation." From the plain reading of this Annexure, it is clear that two requirements are there (1) that person who should have three years diploma in Electronics/Telecommunication/Instrumentation (2) He should have advance Diploma in mining electronics of at least one year duration. But it appears that in similarly situated case on the basis of a judgment of the Calcutta High Court one Sri Anil Kumar Singh was given promotion vide order contained in Annexure -G to the counter affidavit, in a special case.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner pointed out that subsequently, it was enquired by the respondents whether or not one year advance diploma will be equivalent to 3 years diploma in Electronics/Telecommunication by Annexure -5 from the Registrar, Indian School of Mines. Dhanbad and by Annexure -5/1 the Assistant Registrar (Academic and Examination) Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad after examination has reported as follows : "In this connection, I am directed to inform you that the minimum qualification for admission to Advance Diploma in Mine Electronics of this School is Diploma in Electronics or its equivalent and therefore the said Diploma of this School has higher standard than the Diploma in Electronics of other places. It may kindly be noted that the courses of studies of our Diploma are unique and such courses are not offered anywhere else. Thereafter considering the report and on the basis of the representation of the petitioner he was given promotion vide Annexure -A to be counter affidavit to post of Engineer (E & M) in E2 grade and the promotion was to be effective on and from the date Sri Yadav assumes charge of the higher post at the place of posting decided by the Chairman -cum -Managing Director, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad. So now the situation is that even on the basis of that very qualification that is Advanced Diploma in Mine Instrumentation and Telecommunication (duration of year) obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner has been reconsidered and he has been promoted. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that because of not promoting him at the relevant time when his juniors were promoted his seniority has been disturbed and, therefore, this promotion should have been given to him earlier when his juniors have been promoted. Now by issuing the promotion letter Annexure -A the respondents themselves have conceded to this situation that one year Advanced Diploma in instrumentation and telecommunication is better than three years diplomas in Electronics/Telecommunication/Instrumentation. Earlier when petitioner was eligible for being considered for promotion he was not considered due to certain confusion prevailing in the mind of the respondents that the diploma in mine instrumentation and telecommunication of one year is not the requisite qualification possessed by the petitioner. But as subsequently on enquiry it was found that advanced Diploma in mine of one year is better than there years diploma in Electronics/ Telecommunication/ Instrumentation, there can be no reason for exclusion of the petitioner from consideration on earlier occasions, because it is not case of the respondents that the petitioner had acquired this diploma after date of previous consideration rather the petitioner was already possessing that qualification at that relevant date.";