Important Point
Where promotional post is selection post an employee cannot claim for appointment on basis of seniority-cum-suit­ability over another employ­ee who stands first in selection.

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Nilu Sharma, respondent No. 1, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the National Airports Authority (hereinafter re­ferred to as ‘NAA’) and others, challenging appointment of C.V. Mar­thandan, respondent No. 9, as Private Secretary and for a direction to NAA to promote her as Private Secretary on the basis of her seniority. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the appointment of respondent No. 9 and directed NAA to consider Nilu Sharma for appoint­ment as Private Secretary by applying the criteria of seniority-cum-suitability. NAA has, therefore, filed this appeal.

3. Prior to 1990, there was no post of ‘Private Secretary’ in the organisation of NAA. In May, 1990, it created four fresh posts of Private Secretary, one each for the offices at Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Mad­ras, in the pay-scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/-. On July 5, 1990, it issued a Memorandum informing all concerned that the said posts were to be filled up from amongst stenographers Grade I and Grade II having a combined service of 8 years. By the same Memorandum, Smt. Khade and Nilu Sharma were requested to appear for the interview as they were the only two stenographers found eligible for selection to the said post. Before they could be interviewed, the proposal to fill up the posts in that manner was cancelled by issuing a Memorandum dated 12.7.1990. In 1992, to fill up the two vacant posts at Bombay and Delhi, Nilu Sharma and two others, namely, M. Ranganathan of Madras office and Sheikh Asadullah of Calcutta office were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Only Sheikh Asadullah was found fit for appointment, but as he refused to move out of Calcutta, no ap­pointment could be made. On February 9, 1993, NAA again informed the Regional Executive Directors of Delhi and Bombay offices that all stenographers with a total of 20 years’ combined service as steno Grade I and steno Grade II have been made eligible for the post of ‘Private Secretary’; and that the selection would be made on the basis of a written test followed by an interview. All those who were willing to appear in the test, were required to submit their willingness by 28.2.1993. The test for the post in Delhi office was held in June, 1993 and one Baljit Singh, who stood first, was appointed. For the vacant post in the Bombay office, no test could be held. As Nilu Sharma was due to retire by January, 1998, it was decided to consider her again for the said post. The DPC again found her unfit and, there­fore, she could not be appointed. Probably, finding it difficult to fill up the post from amongst Grade I and Grade II stenographers, having combined service of 20 years, NAA decided to widen the zone of consideration and consequently all stenographers, Grade I and Grade II with an overall service of 20 years as stenographer Grade III, Grade II and Grade I were made eligible for appearing in the test. NAA, thereafter, by its letter dated 17.3.1994 wrote to the Regional Execu­tive Director, Bombay, to forward a list of eligible and willing candidates to the Headquarters by 30.3.1994. At the test held thereaf­ter, Nilu Sharma, respondent No. 9 and others appeared. Respondent No. 9 stood first. Nilu Sharma was again not found suitable. In view of his first position in the merit list, respondent No. 9 was appointed as ‘Private Secretary’ on 1.8.1994. Nilu Sharma then filed a writ petition as stated above.

4. Her main contention before the High Court was that the post of ‘Private Secretary’ was required to be filled up the promotion of stenographers Grade I on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and as she was the seniormost stenographer Grade I, she ought to have been promoted to that post. It was her contention that respondent No. 9 was not in the cadre of stenographer Grade I and, therefore, was not eligible for consideration and much less for appointment as ‘Private Secretary’. The High