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. Mohaptra & Shivaraj V. Patil.

JUDGMENT:

D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J         Leave granted.

   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 -

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

   (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

   (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.

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

   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.  There will however, be no  order  for costs.