2025:JHHC:30544 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5183 of 2025 ---- 1. Shlok Bashistha aged about 25 years, Son of Rabindra Nath, resident of House no. 3k/18 Housing Colony, Near D.A.V. School, Bargain, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District- Ranchi 2. Avinash Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 26 years, Son of Ajay Kumar Srivastava, resident of 234/a street no. 01 Kanke Road, Near Chandni Chowk, Dhawan Nagar, P.O.- Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Gonda, District- Ranchi ...Petitioners -versus- 1. Coal India Ltd. through its Chairman having its registered office at Coal Bhawan Premise no. 04MAR, Plot no. AF-III Action Area-1A New Town Rajarhat, P.O. and P.S. Rajarhat District- Kolkata (West Bengal) 2. General Manager (Personnel/ Recruitment) Coal India Ltd. having its registered office at Coal Bhawan Premise no. 04MAR, Plot no. AF-III Action Area- 1A New Town Rajarhat, P.O. and P.S. Rajarhat District- Kolkata (West Bengal) 3. CMPDI through its CMD having its registered office at Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O.- Kanke, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi 4. General Manager (P&A) CMPDI having its registered office at Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District- Ranchi … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, Advocate : Mr, Rajesh Lala, Advocate ---- 04/ 17.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. For issuance of an appropriate writ, rule, order, commanding upon the respondents authority to consider relaxation in cut off date to the petitioners for qualification and eligibility criteria for promotion/selection of departmental employees from non executive cadre to executive cadre in the discipline of personnel in E2 Grade contained in notification no. 02/2025 published by Coal India Ltd. (contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition). 2. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ direction to consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection/ promotion to E2 Grade as appearing candidates in accordance with the parameter adopted by the respondents (Coal India Ltd.) for appointment in same class/Cadre i.e. E2 Grade as per advertisement no. 01/2025. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Coal India Ltd. vide advertisement no. 01 of 2025 invited application for recruitment of Management Trainee in E2 Grade. Further vide notification no. 02 of 2025, application for the E- 2 Grade were invited from the eligible employee of Coal India Ltd. from non-executive cadre to executive cadre. Both the petitioners are working 2025:JHHC:30544 on compassionate ground in Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDI) and both have qualified Masters of Business Administration on 25.03.2025. The selection/promotion of the departmental employees to the post of E-2 cadre was conducted last in the year 2021. In advertisement no. 01 of 2025, the final semester appearing candidates have been declared eligible to apply for selection in E-2 grade whereas in the advertisement no. 02 of 2025, there is no provision for final year appearing candidates to be eligible to apply for the aforesaid post as cut-off date of requisite qualification is 31.01.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts forth his arguments stating that the Coal India Ltd. made discrimination with the departmental employees who were aspirants for selection in E-2 grade by making two different parameters for appointment to the same cadre. The counsel submits that such discrimination is contrary to the fundamental right of equality of the Constitution of India. The counsel also contends that the employer cannot put arbitrary terms in the appointment of same cadre providing additional preference to one set of participants over the other. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that there has been no discrimination made with the petitioners, instead they have been given an opportunity to apply for the post of E-2 cadre along with other external candidates. The counsel further submitted that there is no violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India. There is no bar in fixing different qualifications for promotion and for direct recruitment for the same post, provided that the classification is reasonable, ensuring fairness and non-discrimination. The counsel contends that advertisement no. 01 of 2025 is a general advertisement for recruitment whereas notification no. 02 of 2025 provides for the promotion/selection of specifically of the departmental employees from non-executive cadre to executive cadre, hence there is nothing discriminatory on part of the respondent authorities. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, I find that requiring different qualifications for internal candidates for appointment and for direct recruitment, in a different advertisement for the same post, does not violates the principles of Article 14 of the constitution of India. It is well-settled that State is permitted to make differential classification of subjects provided that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the classification. Admittedly, vide advertisement no. 01 of 2025:JHHC:30544 2025 respondent invited application for direct recruitment for Management Trainee in E2 Grade whereas vide notification no. 02 of 2025, application for the E-2 Grade were invited from the eligible existing employees of Coal India Ltd. from non-executive cadre to executive cadre. Thus, there has been no irregularity on part of the respondent authority rather they have provided equal opportunity to the departmental employees to apply for the post of E-2 Grade along with applications invited from outside. The employer of the organization has solely has the authority in fix criteria for recruitment which the court shall not interfere. What is best for the employer is to be left to the employer to decide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362 has held as under: “9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.” 8. In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case as there are two different advertisements for two different groups of persons, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th September, 2025 Sandeep cp2