DR. M.K. Sharma, J. - (1.)The present writ petition is directed against the alleged actions of the respondents in not calling for interview for the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director in the subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited those persons who do not have 2 years of actual service remaining on the date of interview. The petitioner has challenged particularly the non-consideration of his case for appointment to one of the posts of Chairman-cum-Managing Director in the subsidiary companies in Coal India Limited on the ground that the petitioner did not have two years of actual service remaining on the date of the interview.
(2.)The petitioner was born on 14.8.1939 and accordingly his date of retirement is 31.8.1997. On 18.10.1993 the petitioner was working as a Director (Technical) in the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited which is one of the subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited. On 13.7.1995 a message was sent by the Chief General Manager (Personnel) to the petitioner asking for his upto date bio-data in PESB format for the purpose of sending it to the appropriate authority for consideration of his particulars for appointment to the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. On 21.7.1995 another mcssage was sent to the petitioner intimating him that the Ministry of Coal had requested for sending his bio-data in PESB format for consideration for appointment to the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited subsidiaries. By the aforesaid message the petitioner was directed to send his bio-data in the format for onward transmission to the Ministry of Coal. In pursuance to the aforesaid communication the petitioner sent his bio-data in the prescribed format. However, the intimation calling for interview to the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director was not issued to the petitioner whereas such intimation was sent to some other candidates for appearing in the interview to be held on 7.9.1995. On enquiries made by the petitioner he was informed that he had not been called for the said interview as he did not have minimum of 2 years service left over on the scheduled date of interview. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on the ground that the decision of the respondents in not calling the candidates who hadless than 2 years of left overservice on the date of the interview is arbitrary, void ab initio and illegal.
(3.)The respondents 3 & 4 have filed their counter affidavit in the instant case, justifying their action in not calling the petitioner for interview. It is stated in the counter affidavit that since the petitioner had crossed the age of 56 years on 13.8.1995 he was not called for the interview to be held on 7.9.1995. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 & 2 the aforesaid action in not calling the petitioner for interview has been justified on the basis of the letters issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Public Grievances and Pensions. Specific reference has been made to the circulars and letter dated 1.6.1992 issued under the D.O. No.23(5)EO/92(ACC) wherein it is stated that the Prime Minister had directed that the policy of placing the cut-off limit as 56 years for calling for a person for interview by the PESB should be strictly followed. It is further stated therein that the Prime Minister had further directed that power to relax the age limit would vest only in the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet and that proposals for any relaxation in the age limit might henceforward be submitted to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for its approval. The respondents also relied upon another letter issued under D.O. No.27(3)-EO/84(ACC) dated 20.2.1984 issued by the Secretary of the Department of Personnel wherein it is stated that the candidates who would not have the prospect of a reasonable tenure of atleast two years in the top management post ' may not be recommended for appointment to such posts.