B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi passed in LPA (C)No. 1069 of 2004 affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2338 of 1991.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts needed for disposal of this appeal are as under:

( 3 ) THE appellant Ms. K. A. Nagamani was appointed as a Programmer with the Indian Airlines in the year 1984. The designation of the post of Programmer was changed to that of System Officer in the year 1985. The appellant was promoted to the next higher post of assistant Manager (Systems) in the Department of electronic Data Processing (for short 'edp') sometime in the year 1986 and confirmed in the said post on 15. 9. 1987. The EDP consisted of four divisions viz. Software, Hardware, Data Communications and computer Operations. Indian Airlines Officers' association vide its representations dated 19. 9. 1990 and 28. 9. 1990 suggested and requested the management to merge the hardware and software cadres and to prepare a common seniority list. A common seniority list dated 24. 9. 1990 had been drawn for the purpose of promotions.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER interviews were held on 15. 10. 1990 for the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/systems ). The said post was to be filled from the merged seniority list of hardware and software cadres. The management vide its letter dated 23. 11. 1990 informed the appellant and others that their candidatures were being considered for filling up the post of Deputy manager (Maintenance/systems ). Thereafter, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were selected for the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/systems ). The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the promotion of respondent nos. 2 to 4 as the writ petition filed by her was dismissed and confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court.

( 5 ) THE High Court inter alia held that promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/systems) is to be on the basis of merit and, therefore, found no merit in the submission of the appellant that her juniors (respondent nos. 3 and 4) could not have been promoted to the said post. That so far as the promotion of the second respondent is concerned the division Bench while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge found that his promotion had been upheld by the court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3647/93 titled as Jaidev Chakraborthy and Ors. Vs. Indian Airlines and Ors. in which the appellant herein was also arrayed as a party respondent.

( 6 ) THE main thrust of the submission made by the appellant in-person was that the promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/systems) could not have been made based on the terms of the settlement between the Indian Airlines and its Officers' association. That all along there has been separate seniority list of Assistant Managers and Senior computer Officers in EDP Department of the corporation. The respondent no. 2 was on seniority list of Systems Officers who was promoted as Assistant manager (Systems) in 1985 and continued to be borne on the seniority list of Assistant Manager (Systems) till 1988. Though, he was on the cadre of Systems called for interview for the post of Senior Computer Officer (Technical) in 1988 and was illegally shown at sl. no. 1 in the seniority list of Senior Computer Officer. He was not eligible to be considered for the higher post. That rule 4 (d) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules provides that within a department, employees will be divided into kindred occupational groups called cadres as shown in the annexed schedule to the Rules and seniority shall be on the basis of such cadres. That the cadres of Systems and Maintenance being new cadres have not been shown in the annexed schedule but have been shown separately on seniority lists. The submission was: two separate cadres could not have been merged into one based on agreement arrived at between the Corporation and the Officers' Association. It was submitted that settleme