Holding

The respondent does not possess the prescribed qualification under Rule 72(2)(b) and is therefore ineligible for the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee).

Summary

Coal India Ltd., a government company, sought to promote non‑executive employees to the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee) which, under Rule 72(2)(b) of the Mines Rules, 1955, required an MBA with a specialization in Personnel Management recognised by the Director General of Mines Safety (DGMS). The respondent, Bibhu Ranjan Kumar, held an MBA from Magadh University with a special paper in Personnel Management but the degree was not recognised by the DGMS. The High Court allowed his writ petition, directing the company to consider his claim and publish examination results. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the wording of Rule 72(2)(b) and held that the qualification must be a degree or diploma in social science, social work, labour welfare, or related fields, which the respondent’s MBA did not satisfy, and that the lack of DGMS recognition further disqualified him. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent's MBA degree with a special paper in Personnel Management satisfies the qualification requirements of Rule 72(2)(b) of the Mines Rules, 1955 for the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee).
Whether the degree must be recognised by the Director General of Mines Safety (DGMS) to be eligible.

Subjects

Welfare OfficerMines RulesQualification requirementMBAPersonnel ManagementDGMS recognitionPromotion eligibilityLabour law

Judgment

COAL INDIA LTD. A
v.
BIBHU RANJAN KUMAR

FEBRUARY 5, 2001

[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B

Labour Law:

Mines Rules, 1955: Rule 72(2J(b).
c
Welfare Officer (Trainee)-Appointment of-Eligible qualification-MBA
degree with specialisation in "Personnel Management" duly recognised by
Director General, Mines Safety (DGMS)-Candidate possessed a MBA degree
with a special paper in "Personnel Management "-Such MBA degree not
recognised by DGMS-Held: Candidate does not possess the prescribed D
qualification under R. 72(2}(b)-Hence, not eligible for the post of Welfare
Officer (Trainee).

'.J-4. The respondent was an employee in the non-executive cadre of the
appellant-company. The appellant invited application from its non-executive
personnel who possessed MBA degree (two years course) with specialisation E
in personnel management duly recognised by the Director General, Mines
Safety (DGMS) for promotion to the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee).

The respondent possessed a MBA degree (two years course) from a
.)a university with a special paper in personnel management and, therefore, F
claimed to be an eligible candidate for promotion to the executive cadre. The
appellant-company rejected the respondent's claim. The High Court allowed
the writ petition filed by the respondent. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under Rule 72(2)(b) of
the Mines Rules, 1955 in order to .be eligible for the post of Welfare Officer G
(Trainee) a candidate must have MBA degree with specialisation in
"Personnel Management" whirh was duly recognised by the DGMS; that the
respondent's MBA degree was not recognised by DGMS and therefore, the
respondent did not possess the eligible qualification for the post of Welfare
Officer (Trainee).
859 H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : I. The respondent does not have a degree or post-graduate
diploma in Sociology/Social Welfare/Work/Service/Science Techniques or
Labour Laws/Welfare or Industrial Relations and Personnel Management.
The qualification possessed by the respondent is MBA degree (two years
B course) with "Personnel Management" as a special paper, which on a bare
reading of Rule 72(2) (b) of the Mines Rules, 1955 does not come within the
qualifications provided therein. ·~~

2. It is not the case of the respondent that his MBA degree has been
recognised by the Director General, Mines Safety (DGMS). Indeed, it is the
C specific stand of the appellant that the said degree has not been recognised
by the DG MS. Therefore, the respondent cannot be said to possess the eligible
qualifications for the post of Welfare Officer (Trainee).

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 031 of
D 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.99 of the Calcutta High Court
in G.A. No. 4468of1999.

Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Appellant.

E Rakesh Dwivedi and B.B. Singh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.

F 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. Tl>e 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 con finned by the Division Bench vide the judgment/
G 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:

H The respondent Bibhu Ranjan Kumar holds a post in the non- executive
COAL INDIA LTD. v. B.R. KUMAR [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 861
cadre of the company. The nianagement decided to promote qualified and A
---...,· - 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 B
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 C
appellant-company for the purpose. The appellant did not accept the
respondent as a candidate possessing the prescribed eligibility qualification.
~-
(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 D
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.
E
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) F
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
G
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 H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] I S.C.R.

A writ petitioner holds a MBA" degree which is a post graduate degree from a
recognised University with a special paper in 'Personnel Management' he "r'
possesses the prescribed qualification. The Division Bench, in appeal,
confirmed the judgment.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the
B 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
C 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.

D Since the determination of the controversy raised in the case de,pfnds
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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H Labour Officers included in the Central Pool under the provisions
COAL INDIA LTD. v. B.R. KUMAR [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 863
of the Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions A·
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 B
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 C
post-graduate diploma in Sociology/Social Welfare/Work/ Service/Science
Techniques or Labour Laws/Welfare or Industrial Relations 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 D
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 E
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 DG MS. Therefore, the respondent
cannot be said to possess the qualification stated in the circular letter. F
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.
G
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.

V.S.S. Appeal allowed. H