- (1.) Heard Mr. K. M. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the Respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is heard and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioners by giving them age relaxation, pursuant to the posts for which the Advertisements have been made on different occasions lastly on 06.01.2008, published in Prabhat Khabar (Dhanbad) vide Annexure -6.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners explains that earlier in the year 1995, though a similar Advertisement was issued by the Respondent -E.C.L. in response to which the petitioners had submitted their respective applications and had also faced the Interview Board but the results of the Interview were not published and the very selection and appointment process was aborted. The petitioners had filed a writ application before this Court, vide W.P. (C) No. 6358 of 2002 before this Court with a prayer to direct the Respondents to declare and publish the panel of the successful candidates relating to the appointment to the posts of Jr. Overman under the Respondents -Company and then to direct the appointment of the petitioners on the post of the Jr. Overman. The writ application was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 11.02.2004, with an observation that considering the financial Respondent -Company, the Court would not issue any directions to the Respondent -Company to make any fresh appointments. However, it had also observed that "if the petitioners had successfully qualified in the Interview and if there is shift or change in policy at any later stage, the Respondents may do the needful in accordance with law including considering as to whether the petitioners should be given priority.  The grievance of the petitioners is that without complying with the directions passed in the aforesaid earlier writ application the Respondents have now proceeded to make appointments to the post of Jr. Overman and have totally ignored the petitioners candidatures instead of complying with the orders of this Court by giving them age relaxation. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand, would explain by taking a preliminary objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court claiming that the cause of action arose at Sanctoria in the District of Bardwan (West Bengal), in as much as, the Advertisement was issued from West Bengal and the applications were invited through the Employment Exchange. This plea has been countered by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that admittedly, through the advertisement, the vacancies were advertised for filling up the posts under the various collieries located within the State of Jharkhand and the applications have been invited for the aforesaid vacancies. Furthermore, the appointments as declared in the Advertisement are for filling up the vacant posts under the various collieries, some of which exist even within the State of Jharkhand. The objection of the territorial jurisdiction, in my opinion, is not tenable and is rejected. Learned counsel adds further that the earlier exercise for filling up the vacant posts, which was initiated in the year 1995 through the Advertisement, issued, had to be aborted on account of certain judicial orders, passed by the Kolkata High Court in the writ application of various applicants, who had raised the issue of age relaxation and as such, neither the panel could be published nor could the process of selection be continued to its logical end, as the Respondent -Company was going through acute financial crisis when the earlier advertisement was published at the relevant time for filling up the vacant posts. Learned counsel explains further that the Respondents -Company has now identified as many as 66 vacancies, and decision has been taken to fill up these vacancies and the process has now been initiated. Learned counsel adds further that even though in the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application, an observation was made that the Respondents may consider giving priority to the petitioners, if they are found to have successfully qualified in the earlier Interview, the petitioners have not even applied in response to the Advertisement, apparently for the reason that they have crossed the upper age limit as per the eligibility criteria. Learned counsel explains further that the results of the Interview, which was conducted on the previous occasion, was never published at all and therefore, it cannot be said as to whether the petitioners had qualified in the Interview or not. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the facts, which emerge are that the petitioners appear to place their reliance, entirely on the observations recorded by this Court in the earlier writ application as mentioned above, wherein this Court had observed that "if the petitioners had successfully qualified in the Interview and if there is shift or change in policy at any later stage, the Respondents may do the needful in accordance with law including considering as to whether the petitioners should be given priority.  Apparently, the matter has been left to the sole discretion of the Respondents and there is no mandate issued upon the Respondents in this regard. The observations in itself do not create any right upon the petitioners for being considered for their appointment. It would also appear that in continuation with the above observations, this Court had also observed as follows : -"These observations will however, not be deemed to be an expression conferring entitlement upon the petitioners as it will depend on the effect, interpretation and tenor of policies that the Respondents may frame in their wisdom and discretion.  Apparently the aforesaid observation of this Court was made in consideration of the policies which the Respondents may take within their exclusive discretion. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. ;