Arbitrary refusal to appoint departmental candidates as Managemen
Most Respectfully Sheweth,
1. That Coal India Limited (CIL) the respondent No.2 is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered Office at Coal Bhawan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001 within the aforesaid jurisdiction. The Chairman, Coal India Limited is the appointing authority and Disciplinary authority in respect of the executives working within its jurisdiction.
Prior to selection of your petitioners in executive cadre as Welfare Officer (T) in E1 Grade they were posted in non-executive capacity at different units/mines/offices under respondent No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 who carries on their business under the overall control and supervision of the respondent No.2.
2. That now subsequent to their selection/appointment in executive cadre, your petitioners are employees of the respondent No.2 and posted in the different Units/Mines/offices of the respective Subsidiary Companies (respondent No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10) under Control & Supervision of respondent No.2 as stated in the Cause Title above. Your petitioners are citizens of India. Since their appointments in executive cadre and joining at their respective units/mines/offices in the respective Subsidiary Companies of respondent No.2, all along rendered efficient, sincere, meritorious, commendable and faithful service to the satisfaction to the respondents and all concerned authorities.
3. That, in their respective services in the different subsidiary companies under respondent No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 (who carries on their business under the overall control and supervision of the respondent No.2) your petitioners earned eligibility for appointment/selection in executive cadre in Welfare/Personnel discipline by acquiring the requisite qualification as required under Mines Act-1952 & under Rule-72 of Mines Rules-1955. Some of your petitioners even acquired the required qualification long back and were eligible for selection/appointment in executive cadre in Welfare/Personnel discipline since long. By virtue of their long services rendered your petitioners earned great experience and were well conversant with the working of the mines and therefore, were more capable of handling the executive assignments of Welfare/Personnel discipline than fresher’s.
4. That, as per the provision contained in the Common Coal Cadre out of the total vacancy available in Personnel / Welfare discipline, 50% vacancies are filled up by fresh/outside candidates and rest 50% from amongst the eligible departmental candidates.
Therefore, in order to fill up existing vacancies for departmental candidates a notification was issued by the then GM (P), Coal India Limited vide Ref. No. CIL/C5A(i)/50254/NE-559 dt. 08.03.2010 vide which applications were invited from the eligible departmental candidates for selection to the post of Management Trainee (Welfare/Personnel) in E1 Grade (Exhibit-1).
That, on the other hand selection process of executives of Personnel & Welfare discipline from outside was notified vide reference CIL_ADVT_MT2011 in the year 2011 for appointment to the post of Management Trainee (Personnel & HR) in E1 Grade (Exhibit-2).
5. That, on perusal of the notification No. CIL/C5A(i)/50254/NE-559 dt. 08.03.2010 issued by the respondent authority it would transpire that the respondents cannot reasonably dispute that as on 8th March 2010 vacancies existed in the Welfare/Personnel discipline and only to fill up the said vacancy, the above notification was issued on 8th March 2010 for selection/appointment of the departmental candidates. It can also be reasonably and safely presumed and inferred that the management/respondents authorities only upon considering their records were certain that there was requirement and necessity to fill up vacancies in Welfare/Personnel discipline. But your petitioners are not aware of the reason for not taking action in the year 2010 and till June 2011 for filling up of the vacant post in Welfare/Personnel discipline for which notification was issued by the respondent authority themselves.
6. It was the responsibility of the respondents to timely conduct selection tests to fill up the notified existing vacancies. Your petitioner apprehend which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case that with ill motive and malafide intention some of the concerned respondent authorities have deliberately delayed finalization of the selection process of your petitioners that have led them to suffer great loss both from monetary and seniority point of view for which they deserved to be compensated by the respondent authority.
7. That totally ignoring the candidature of your petitioners whose applications were received by the respondents in the year 2010 itself, the respondents have put in all out efforts to conduct the selection of the outside candidates before the departmental candidates whereas the notification for outside candidates was issued in the year 2011. Written test of the outside candidates was conducted on 7th July 2012 and that of departmental candidates on 14th July 2012.
But hurriedly the selection process of the outside candidates was completed by December, 2012 ignoring the long standing candidature of departmental candidates whose applications were accepted by the respondent in 2010 itself. As a result of this favoritism the outside candidates joined in executive cadre in January, 2012 whereas the selection process of the departmental candidates was finalized in June, 2012 i.e. nearly six months after the outside candidates. The outside candidates who were junior to the departmental candidates by virtue of date of notification as well as cut-off date for acquiring eligibility qualification but with undue and malafide grace of the respondent authority they have been made senior to the departmental candidates.
8. That, the post of Welfare/Personnel is statutory post as prescribed under the provisions of Mines Act-1952 (Exhibit-3). The eligibility qualification are also prescribed under Rule-72 of the Mines Rules-1955 (Exhibit-4) as well as in the notification issued to this effect by the Appropriate Govt. i.e. Director General of Mines Safety and published in the Official Gazette (Exhibit-5).
9. That Personnel/Welfare being a Statutory post, a specific designation of “Welfare Officer” is also categorically specified in the relevant provisions of Mines Act-1952 and the eligibility qualification for appointment to such post of Welfare Officer is mentioned under Rule-72 of Mines Rules 1955 as already elaborated at para-above.
10. That in contrary to the provisions contained in the Mines Act-1952 notification was issued vide notification No. CIL_ADVT_MT2011 in the year 2011 for recruitment of the fresh/outside candidates (Exhibit-2) in which the designation offered to the outside candidates as Management (Trainee) in HR/Personnel which was in total violation of the provisions of the Mines Act-1952. It is noteworthy that this recruitment was done against the vacancy available for the post of Welfare Officer as prescribed under the Act. In order to favour the outside candidates with higher grade and higher pay and perks in comparison to departmental candidates, the respondent No. 2 arbitrarily decided to change & alter the designation of Welfare Officer as prescribed under the Mines Act-1952 in respect of the outside candidates and they have been designated as Management (Trainee) HR/Personnel totally violating the provisions of the Act.
11. That, the recruitment process of Departmental Candidates which was initiated in the month of March, 2010 was delayed deliberately for no reason and was completed in June, 2012 only to favour the outside candidates whereas, the recruitment process for fresh/outside candidates which had started in the year 2011 was completed by December, 2011 itself thereby making them senior to the departmental candidates by nearly six months.
12. That both the departmental candidates as well as the fresh/outside candidates had underwent same methodology of selection i.e. written test followed by interview. The same “minimum eligibility qualification” is prescribed under Rule-72 Mines Rules 1955(under the Mines Act-1952) for appointment/selection/ recruitment to the executive post in Welfare/Personnel discipline for departmental as well outside candidates. The same designation of Management(Trainee) was offered by Respondent No.2 to the departmental candidates as well as outside candidates. The same Grade was also offered to the departmental candidates as well as outside candidates i.e. E-1 Grade in Executive Cadre. But the outside candidates have been arbitrarily granted E2 grade i.e. one grade higher than the notified grade while the departmental candidates were denied this benefit.
13. That there cannot be any dispute that those outside candidates who had submitted their applications against the recruitment notice issued by the respondent No.2 had agreed to accept E-1 Grade officered to them through the said notification. Even after having accepted the offer of the terms of appointment as specified in the above notification, the outside Management Trainees had joined in E1 Grade in January, 2012 but the respondent No.2 arbitrarily decided to favour the outside candidates with higher grade & Scale of pay for some hidden unknown reasons best known to them. The respondent No.2 decided by means of the decision taken for amendment in the provisions of the Common Coal Cadre by the Coal India Limited Board in its 277th meeting held on 30th Jan, 2012, wherein it is specified that “the recruitment of Management Trainees in all discipline through open advertisement and through campus will be E2 Grade in 1st Year and subsequently placed in E3 Grade after successful completion of one year”. In light of this amendment even the outside candidates who had accepted offer of E-1 Grade and were also appointed in Welfare/Personnel discipline were granted in E-2 Grade from their date of placement in E-1 Grade and were also granted E-3 Grade from their date of completion of one year training period. But your petitioners, the poor departmental candidates have been completely denied this benefit at par with outside candidates although they were also selected following the same selection procedure and having qualification as prescribed under the Act.
14. That the Respondent No. 2 had also offered to your petitioners the designation of Management (Trainee) at par with outside candidates vide notification Ref. No. CIL/C5A(i)/50254/NE-559 dated 08.03.2010. But after long deprivation when the selection process of your petitioners, the departmental candidates was completed and their promotion/appointment order was issued by Respondent No. 2 vide Office Order No. CIL/C-5A(i)/50254/Officer-Wel/Pers/190 dated 05.06.2012 issued under the signature of General Manager (Personnel/Recruitment) Coal India Ltd., your petitioners have surprisingly noted that their designation was mentioned in the promotion order as Welfare Officer (Trainee) (Exhibit-7) contrary to the offer made by the respondent No. 2 vide their notification Ref. No. CIL/C5A(i)/50254/NE-559 dated 08.03.2010.
15. That now your petitioners are in dilemma as if how they can be offered a post that was not advertised through the notification dt. 08.03.2010 by the respondent No. 2 and if the respondent No. 2 had decided to award your petitioners the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee) as specified in the Mines Act-1952 then the outside candidates should also have been designated as Welfare Officer (Trainee). Against the same set of vacancy where 50% is to be filled in from departmental candidates and rest 50% by outside candidates, how there could be two different set of designation and two different set of grade. Your petitioners have been totally discriminated by respondent No. 2 violating Sec-12, 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Your petitioners had also represented several times in person as well as through written representation but all in vain.
16. That your petitioners were offered the designation of Management (Trainee) vide Ref. No. CIL/C5A(i)/50254/NE-559 dated 08.03.2010 and having accepted the terms of offer, they had qualified in the written test as well as Interview conducted by respondents. Therefore, the principles of justice demand that they deserve to be appointed as Management (Trainee) from their respective date of appointment at par with outside candidates and thereby, they also deserve the benefit of placement in E2 Grade from date of promotion / appointment and E-3 Grade from the date of completion of one year training as offered to the outside candidates.
17. That, the job requirement and job allotment to the Management Trainees recruited from outside as well as departmental candidates designated by Respondents as Welfare Officer (Trainee) are same. Both are entrusted to do the same kind and same nature of job and none of the outside candidates designated as Management (Trainee) and were granted higher post & grade in comparison to the departmental candidates, have been entrusted with higher degree of responsibilities than the Welfare Officer (Trainees).
18. That, the above discrimination had been effected on your petitioners by means of the decision taken for amendment in the provisions of the Common Coal Cadre by the Coal India Limited Board in its 277th meeting held on 30th Jan, 2012, the recruitment of Management Trainees in all discipline through open advertisement and through campus will be E2 Grade in 1st Year and subsequently placed in E3 Grade after successful completion of one year. But the Board is silent in respect of the career growth of the departmental candidates. It is also questionable, as to whether the CIL Board is empowered to frame rules that discriminate its own employees and denying equal opportunity violating the Sec-12 & Sec-14 of the Constitution.
19. That the discriminatory decision taken by respondent No.2 through amendment in the provisions of the Common Coal Cadre its 277th meeting of its Board held on 30th Jan, 2012 as can be seen, does not reflect any reason for such biased decision. When such an important decision is taken, its derivatives should also have been mentioned in the circular issued (Annex- ). On the repeated appeal submitted by your petitioners to the respondent No.10/Director(Personnel) Coal India Limited, your petitioners were denied justice. Rather, a baseless argument was offered by the respondent that the outside candidates are possessing higher qualification and they have come from institutes of repute as such, they have been granted higher grade i.e. E-2 Grade on appointment and E-3 Grade after completion of one year training period.
Your petitioners are totally perplexed as to how the respondent authority is empowered to decide the reputation/standard of educational institutions of their own. How there could be two different set of principles against the same qualification acquired from two different educational institutions that too when these Educational Institutions are specified in the gazette notification none other than by Director General of Mines Safety who are appropriate Govt. in this matter as already placed as Exhibit 5. Further, there was also no scope for the respondent authority to select the outside candidates from the institutes of repute as they claimed. The selection of outside candidates was also done through open advertisement and as such all outside candidates who were eligible as per the advertised criteria were allowed to appear in the written test irrespective of their Educational Institutions and those who qualified in the written test and found place in the merit list were interviewed by the respondent authority. Again irrespective of their Educational Institutions and those who figured in the overall merit list were appointed/selected in the executive cadre irrespective of their Educational Institutions. As such the ground of discrimination put forth by the respondent is totally baseless, false and only aimed at discriminating your petitioners.
Your petitioners also failed to understand that even in the event of possession of higher qualification possessed by a candidate, how he/she could be offered higher grade when all the successful candidates may it be departmental or outside possess minimum prescribed qualification as per the rules. Your petitioners are not aware as to whether in any written test conducted by UPSC or any other Selection Board a successful candidate having higher qualification than the minimum prescribed qualification can be given higher post in comparison to other successful candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification. Then an IAS having Graduation Degree would have been placed lower than an IAS having Post Graduate Degree. This is amply clear that the ground put forth by the respondent authority is ridiculous, mischievous, anti-constitutional and is only aimed at discriminating your petitioners. The respondent authority denied your petitioner the right to equality before law and deprived them of the dignity that they deserve in complete violation of the Sec-21 of the constitution of India.
20. That, as a result the Management Trainees (Personnel & HR) so appointed from outside whose recruitment process was notified in the year 2011 i.e. much later than your petitioner, became senior by six months in the same grade by virtue of prior declaration of result and subsequently by virtue of the above amendment in the Common Coal Cadre, the Management Trainees were placed in E2 Grade with retrospective effect and as such they became senior in E2 grade and thereafter on completion of one year probation they have been placed in E3 Grade as a result your petitioners shall also be placed as junior to the outside candidates in E3 grade.
21. That, your petitioners/departmental candidates who were selected as Welfare Officer (Trainee) in E1 Grade in June 2012 have no promotional avenues open to them beyond E3 Grade. This is because as per provisions of Common Coal Cadre applicable in respect of executives of Coal India Limited, E3 post is filled up by cluster promotion that takes not less than three years in E2 Grade and E4 post is vacancy based.
Meaning thereby that the departmental candidates selected in E-1 Grade w.e.f. June, 2012 have now been placed in E2 Grade w.e.f. June/July, 2013 vide Office Order No. CIL/C-5A(i)/50297/Closure/MTs/2967 dt. 03.01.2014 (Exhibit-9). On completion of three years’ service in E2 Grade your petitioners will become eligible for promotion to E3 grade on or after Jun/July, 2016. That is to say that your petitioners shall remain in E2 Grade till June/July, 2016. While on the other hand, all the outside candidates who have been recruited in the year 2012 have now been placed in E3 Grade w.e.f. June, 2013 i.e. clearly one grade higher than your petitioners by virtue of the discriminatory policy adopted by the respondent authority. By the time, your petitioners shall be eligible for promotion to E3 Grade by June/July, 2016 they shall become three years junior in E3 grade than the outside candidates.
That, since the E4 Grade is vacancy based, naturally the outside candidates who by the grace of the respondent authority are made to occupy E3 Grade w.e.f. June, 2013 itself shall be promoted first in E4 Grade and till the last man amongst the outside candidate is not promoted there will be no scope for promotion of the departmental candidates in E4 grade.
22. That, this discriminatory policy adopted by the respondent authority did not only make the outside batch of 2012 senior to your petitioners, but against any recruitment made from outside during the year 2013 or 2014, the outside candidates shall also automatically become senior to your petitioners. Since, your petitioners shall become eligible for promotion in E-3 Grade after completion of three years’ service in E2 Grade. Therefore, by virtue of placement of your petitioners in E2 w.e.f. June/July, 2013 they shall become eligible for promotion to E3 Grade by June/July, 2016. But as per the discriminatory policy adopted by Coal India Limited, the outside candidates would not have to stay three years in E2 Grade, rather they will be placed in E2 Grade on their joining and E3 Grade just after completion of one year in E2. Consequently, not only the counterpart of your petitioners but their juniors recruited from outside in the year 2013 or even 2014 on completion of one year service in E2 Grade shall be placed in E3 Grade w.e.f. 2014, 2015 respectively. Your petitioners have been forced to concede that all outside candidates who were not even eligible as on their date of joining and those who join in the same cadre after one year or two year shall be placed in higher grade superseding their candidature. Very naturally all the outside candidates recruited in 2013, 2014 or even before June/July, 2015 shall occupy E3 Grade before your petitioners become eligible for E3 Grade and till all such candidates are not promoted to E4 Grade there is no scope for promotion of your petitioners in E4 Grade since promotion in E4 grade is vacancy based.
The promotional avenues of your petitioners have been completely closed beyond E3 tactically by the respondent authority only to favour their favourite candidates.
23. That, this discriminatory policy adopted by the respondent authority DID NOT ONLY make the outside batch of 2012 senior to them. But against any recruitment made from outside in Welfare/Personnel discipline during the year 2013 or 2014, the outside candidates shall also automatically become senior to your petitioners. Since, your petitioners shall be become eligible for promotion in E-3 Grade after completion of three years service in E-2 Grade. Therefore, by virtue of placement of your petitioners in E-2 w.e.f. June/July 2013 they shall become eligible for promotion to E-3 Grade by June/July 2016. But as per the discriminatory policy adopted by Coal India Limited, the outside candidates would not have to stay for three years in E-2 Grade, rather they will be placed in E-2 Grade on their joining and E-3 Grade just after completion of one year in E-2. Consequently, not only the counterpart of your petitioners but their juniors recruited after two or three years after them from outside in the year 2013, 2014 or even 2015 on completion of one year service in E-2 Grade shall be placed in E-3 Grade i.e. one grade higher than your petitioners w.e.f. 2014, 2015 & 2016 respectively. Your petitioners have been forced to concede that all outside candidates who were not even eligible as on date of joining of the departmental candidates in executive cadre in Welfare/Personnel discipline and those who join in the same cadre after one year, two year or three years after them, shall be placed in higher grade superseding their candidature. Very naturally all the outside candidates recruited in 2013, 2014 or even before June/July 2015 shall occupy E-3 Grade before the your petitioners become eligible for E-3 Grade and till all such outside candidates are not promoted to E-4 Grade there is no scope for promotion of your petitioners in E-4 Grade since promotion in E-4 grade is vacancy based. This action of the respondent as above has completely destroyed the moral and dignity of your petitioners.
24. That it is amply evident that, your petitioners are having rich experience in the coal industry by virtue of their meritorious service rendered in the organization. They are well versed with the rules and procedures as well as the working conditions of Coal Mines. They have been selected in executive cadre after the due process of passing through Written Test as well as Interview on the same lines as that of outside recruitment of Management Trainees, having prescribed qualifications as required under the Mines Act-1952 & Mines Rules 1955 have been discriminated by the respondent authority and their career prospects have been completely doomed by way of the discriminatory amendment made to the Common Coal Cadre, by the respondent authority to favour exclusively the Management Trainees recruited from outside.
25. That at this stage, the “Common Coal Cadre” which contains the basic guiding principles for appointment/selection/promotion of the executives of Coal India Limited further arbitrary amendments were made by the respondent No.2 vide Order No. CIL/C-5A(PC)/CCC/04 dt. 01.01.2014 issued by the GM (P), CIL wherein the departmental quota for promotion to executive cadre in Personnel & Welfare Discipline has been reduced from the existing quota of 50% to the extent of 33.33% and ironically this has been stressed by the respondent authority as a measure to encourage non-executive departmental candidates (Exhibit-10). This step on the part of respondent No. 2 also vividly reveals ill intention of the respondent towards career growth of departmental candidates.
26. That the respondent authority did not stop here. They have further damaged the cause of your petitioners by subjecting them to loss of basic pay on promotion to executive cadre. In all PSUs subsequent to promotion of employees from non-executive cadre to executive cadre their basic pay is protected. As per practice in vogue promotional benefit is added in their old basic pay and new basic pay is fixed in the pay scale of promoted executive grade i.e. E1, E2 etc. But in case of your petitioners, the basic pay that they had been drawing before their promotion, had been reduced substantially after promotion to executive cadre. The employees who were getting basic pay of ? 36000 or ? 37000 per month in non-executive grade, their basic pay has been refixed on promotion to executive grade at ? 28000 & ? 29000.00 per month. For example basic pay of a few petitioners is given under for kind perusal:
Sl. Name & Designation EIS Basic Pay drawn in wage board Basic pay after promotion in E1 grade
1. ? ?
27. That the above reduction in basic pay did not only impact overall salary of your petitioners but also influenced growth of their basic pay adversely. In Coal India Ltd. both Non-executive and Executive cadre employees get Annual Increment @ 3% per annum. Accordingly, your petitioners were getting Annual Increment per year @ 3% of basic pay at their respective non-executive scale of pay prior to promotion/selection in executive cadre. Now subsequent to their promotion in executive cadre this annual increment has become 3% of executive basic pay which is much lower than the previous annual increment as may be perused from table given under. It is worthy to mention that this negative growth shall continue to hamper growth of their basic pay throughout career.
Sl. Name & Designation Prior to promotion After promotion Negative
Basic Pay Annual Increment Basic Pay Annual Increment
1. ? 37,000/- ? 1,110/- ? 29,000/- ? 870/- ? 240/-
G R O U N D S
i) There is no valid reason for the respondent authorities totally ignore and arbitrarily deviate from their own long standing practices, circulars, orders decision and the provisions of Mines Act1952 and Mines Rules 1955.
ii) In view of the biased & arbitrary action of the respondent, a class / classes of candidates’ juniors to your petitioners have been favored and given undue preference without any justification segregating and totally ignoring and depriving the petitioners arbitrarily and unreasonably.
iii) From the respondent’s actions complained of, it is apparent that each and every decision taken by them virtually aimed at causing loss to the departmental candidates who were eligible since 2010 but were forcibly made junior to their junior outside candidates who became eligible for selection/promotion in Personnel/Welfare discipline in the year 2011.
iv) This Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should judicially review the steps taken by the respondent authorities in regard to filling up of statutory posts in Welfare/Personnel discipline in respect of both outside as well as departmental candidates.
v) By the unreasonable and arbitrary actions of the respondents your petitioners have been illegally discriminated and in any view the actions are against the larger public societal interest.
vi) The respondent authorities are statutorily obliged to fairly observe the provisions of the Mines Act-1952, Mines Rules-1955 and to act in consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutions of India in the matter of selection/appointments in the Welfare/personnel discipline.
vii) The respondents acted unfairly, arbitrarily without any just or reasonable cause and failed to consider the legitimate right of your petitioners to protect their seniority, promotional avenues and also their existing basic pay. In order to ensure observance of obligations by the respondent authorities this Hon’ble Court should judiciously review the actions and decisions taken by the respondent authorities in that regard to set right the unfairness.
viii) The respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily and have abused their power in framing discriminatory policy that made your petitioners junior not only to their counterpart / batch mates of 2012 but also to such outside candidates who joined Coal India Limited in 2013 or even who might join in 2014 & even in 2015.
ix) The respondent authorities exceeded their jurisdiction and without any just cause unfairly delayed the selection process of your petitioners and in the meantime whimsically framed biased policies which have completely closed promotional avenues of your petitioners.
x) In deferring the selection process of your petitioners since 2010 in spite of the fact that vacancies existed since 2010 itself, your petitioners have not only been deprived of selection but also been made junior to their junior candidates who became eligible in the year 2011.
xi) The respondent authorities also framed arbitrary pay fixation policy by virtue of which your petitioners have suffered great losses in their basic pay and also conceding cumulative loss in terms of negative growth in their annual increment as shown in the tables at Para-27 & 28 above.
xii) The impugned actions and decisions of the respondent authorities are not supported by principles of natural justice and fair play and the same violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitutions of India.
28. The concerned records are situated within the aforesaid jurisdiction.
29. Your petitioners have not moved to any Court of Law for ventilating similar cause of action involved in the instant proceedings.
30. Your petitioners repeatedly demanded justice verbally as well as in writing inter-alia by letter dt. 25th April, 2013 (Exhibit 11). Justice has been wrongfully denied by the respondents.
31. It is fit and proper that your petitioners should be given notional seniority and notional fixation in E2 Grade & in E3 Grade in executive cadre in Welfare Personnel discipline with consequential benefit at least from the date their juniors recruited from outside were placed in E2 Grade & E3 Grade respectively subsequent to 08.03.2010 (the date of notification in respect of your petitioners) otherwise your petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Ad-interim order as prayed for should be granted.
32. The instant application is bonafide and made in the interest of justice.
In the premises your lordships may be pleased
to pass the following orders:-
(a) Leave be given to your petitioners to file this application in a representative capacity.
(b) A Writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith give your petitioners equal designation and equal grade and scale of pay at par with outside candidates OR the outside candidates should be designated at par with departmental candidates in consonance with the provisions of the Mines Act-1952 and Mines Rules-1955 and be given equal grade and scale of pay within four weeks or from the date of order that may be passed for protecting the seniority of your petitioners.
(c) A Writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith protect the basic pay of your petitioners that they have been drawing in lower grade prior to their promotion in the executive cadre.
(d) A Writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to certify and to transmit to this Hon’ble Court all records, proceedings, decisions, orders circulars/notifications, & amendments made in the existing rules, in regard to selection of the outside candidates so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same.
(e) Mandatory direction on the respondents to immediately grant your petitioners notional seniority and notional fixation in E2 grade from their date of joining and E3 grade on completion of one year training period with all consequential benefits at par with the outside candidates.
(f) Injunction restraining the respondents from further recruitment of Management Trainees from outside in Personnel/Welfare discipline till final outcome of this application.
(g) Writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing all Appointment Orders issued by the respondent authority in respect of the outside candidates with regard to selection/appointment in the statutory executive post of Welfare/Personnel discipline who were not granted Post/Designation & Grade in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act-1952.
(h) Writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing the orders/circulars/notifications issued by the respondent authority specifically the amendment in the provisions of the Common Coal Cadre in the 277th meeting of its Board held on 30th Jan, 2012 that has been the main source of discrimination of your petitioners.
(i) Stay of operation of the concerned orders/ notifications/ letters in particular issued in regard to selection of executives in Welfare/Personnel discipline from outside.
(j) Ad-interim Orders in terms of prayers figuring at (c), (d), (e) (f) (g) & (h) above.
(k) Cost of and incidental to this application be paid by the respondents.
(l) Such other writ/s be issued and/or order/s be passed to given complete and adequate relief to your petitioners.