http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1031  of  2001

PETITIONER: COAL  INDIA LIMITED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BIBHU RANJAN KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/02/2001

BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil.

JUDGMENT:

D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.

Leave granted.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   The short question that arises for determination in this case  is  whether  the respondent possesses  the  prescribed qualification  for  holding  the  post  of  Welfare  Officer (Trainee) under the appellant- company which is a Government Company.    The  question  having   been  answered  in   the affirmative  by the single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, vide  the  judgment dated 7.10.1999 in W.P.No.1449/97  which was  confirmed by the Division Bench vide the judgment/order dated  24.11.1999  in G.A.No.4468 of 1999, the  company  has filed this appeal by special leave.

   The relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus :@@           JJJJJJ

   The  respondent  Bibhu Ranjan Kumar holds a post in  the non- executive cadre of the company.  The management decided to  promote qualified and suitable persons in  non-executive cadre  to the executive cadre, By the letter dated 22.4.1997 addressed  by the General Manager (Personnel) to the General Manager/Chief  General Managers of different companies under the  management of the appellant a request was made to  send names of eligible departmental candidates for appointment to the  post of Welfare Officer (Trainee).  In the said  letter it  was  specifically  stated  that   the  bio-data  of  the non-executive  personnel  who possess MBA degree (two  years course)  with  specialisation in personnel  management  duly recognised  by the Director General, Mines Safety (for short DGMS)  with 40 % and above marks be sent.  The  respondent claiming  to be an eligible candidate wanted his name to  be recommended  and his bio-data to be sent to the  centralised cell   of  the  appellant-company   for  the  purpose.   The appellant  did  not  accept the respondent  as  a  candidate possessing the prescribed eligibility qualification.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

                           (emphasis supplied)

   The  respondent filed a writ petition in the High  Court seeking  a  writ  of mandamus to  the  appellant-company  to consider his claim for the post.  A single Judge of the High Court by the interim order passed on 17th July 1997 directed the appellant-company to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination  but  ordered  that  his  result  shall  not  be published  for  a period of two weeks from the date  of  the order.   It was made clear that the order will be subject to the final order which will be passed in the writ petition.

At the hearing of the writ petition the main contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was  that the petitioner holds  a MBA degree (two years course) from the Magadh University, Bodhgaya in the State of Bihar,  with a special paper in personnel management and therefore he is duly qualified for holding the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee).  On the other hand the stand taken by the respondent in the writ petition (appellant herein) was that the writ petitioner does not have the prescribed qualification inasmuch as he does not possess MBA degree with specialisation in personnel management recognised by the DGMS, and therefore, he is not eligible to be considered  for the post.

The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent (appellant herein) to publish the result of the examination within two weeks.  From the discussions in the judgment it appears that the learned  single Judge took the view that since the rules merely prescribed that the candidate must possess a degree or post-graduate degree or diploma with specialisation in certain subjects including ’Personnel Management; and  the writ petitioner holds a MBA degree which is a post graduate degree from a recognised University with a special paper in ’Personnel Management’ he possesses the prescribed qualification.  The Division Bench, in appeal,  confirmed  the  judgment.

The learned counsel appearing  for the appellant referred to the provisions of Rule 72(2)(b) of the Mines Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules) and contended that a candidate in order to be eligible to hold the post of Welfare Officer  must have a  MBA degree with specialisation in ’Personnel Management’ which is  duly recognised by the Director General Mines Safety.  Since the MBA degree from the Magadh University has not been recognised by the DGMS the respondent cannot be said to be a candidate possessing the eligible qualification.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the High Court.

Since the determination of the controversy raised in the case depends on interpretation of Rule 72(2)(a) of the Rules it will be convenient to quote the said provision before proceeding to consider the merit of the contention raised on behalf of the parties.         Sub-rule(2) of Rule 72 prescribes as follows:

"(2) No person shall act as a Welfare Officer of a mine unless he possesses -

(a)  a university degree;

(b)  a degree or diploma in social science, (or social work) or labour welfare  (recognised by the Government for the purpose of this rule), and preferably practical experience of handling labour problems in   any industrial undertaking for at least three  years; and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

(c)  a knowledge of the language of the district  in which the mine is situated or the language understood  by the majority of persons employed in the mine;

Provided  that in case of a person already in service as a Welfare Officer in a mine the above qualifications may, with the approval of the Chief Inspector, be relaxed.

(2A)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2),  the Labour Officers included in the Central Pool under the provisions  of the Labour Officers (Central Pool)   Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951, shall be eligible for appointment as a Welfare Officer in a mine."

On a fair reading of the provisions of   the Rule quoted above it is clear to us that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 72 are to be read in conjunction with each other  and a person in order to be eligible to hold the post of Welfare Officer must fulfil these conditions  except the practical  experience of handling labour problems in any industrial undertaking for atleast  three years which is optional. It is not in dispute before us that the respondent does not have a degree or post-graduate diploma in Social Science including any degree or post-graduate diploma in Sociology/Social Welfare/Work/ Service/Science Techniques or Labour Laws/Welfare or Industrial Relationas and Personnel Management. The qualification possessed by him is MBA degree (two years course) with ’Personnel Management’ as a special paper which on a bare reading of the provision of the Rule does not come within the qualifications provided therein.

The further question to be  considered is whether the respondent possesses the qualification stated in the letter of the General Manager (Personnel) dated 22.4.1997 (Annexure P IV) in which the heads of different units  were requested  to send bio data of  the non-executives who possess MBA degree (2 years course) with specialisation in Personnel Management  duly recognised by DGMS with 40% and above marks.  It is not the case of the respondent that MBA degree of Magadh University has been recognised by the DGMS.  Indeed, it is the specific stand of the appellant that the said degree has not been recognised by the DGMS.   Therefore, the respondent cannot be said to possess the qualification stated in the circular letter.

From the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs the resultant position that emerges is that the High Court erred in holding that the respondent possesses the qualification prescribed for the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee) or for promotion from non-executive cadre to the executive cadre.

In the result the appeal is allowed.  The Judgment/order of the learned single Judge dated 7.10.1999 in W.P.No.1449/97 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in  judgment/order dated 24.11.1999 in Appeal G.A.No.4468 of 1999, is set aside.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

There will however, be no order for costs.