Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 668
High Court Of Delhi
R.C.PARTI - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN AIRLINES - Respondent
Civil 3364 of 1990
Decided On : 08/31/1995
LALIT BHASIN, S.L.HANS, VIPLAV SHARMA
The allocation of marks for the interview in the selection process for upper managerial cadre posts is not arbitrary if it is job-oriented and the selection process is justified.
Headnote:
RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION - DEPUTY MANAGER (FLIGHT OPERATIONS) - R AND P RULES - CONSTITUTION OF SELECTION BOARD - ALLOCATION OF MARKS FOR INTERVIEW - WAIVER OF RIGHT TO CHALLENGE SELECTION BOARD - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9 OF R AND P RULES - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISO AND MAIN PROVISION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Flight Operations Officer, challenged the promotion of his juniors to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations), alleging that the selection process was flawed and violated the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R and P Rules). He argued that the selection committee was not constituted as per the rules, that the allocation of 50% marks for the interview was arbitrary, and that the respondent failed to issue public notices for the post as required by the rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) was an upper managerial cadre post and the selection process was justified. It found that the allocation of 50% marks for the interview was not arbitrary and was job-oriented. The court also held that the respondent was justified in constituting an ad-hoc selection board under the proviso to Rule 10(c) of the R and P Rules due to structural changes in the departments. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the constitution of the selection board by appearing before it without objection.
Issues: 1. Whether the selection process for the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) was flawed and violated the R and P Rules? 2. Whether the allocation of 50% marks for the interview was arbitrary? 3. Whether the respondent was justified in constituting an ad-hoc selection board under the proviso to Rule 10(c) of the R and P Rules? 4. Whether the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the constitution of the selection board?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the selection process was justified as the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) was an upper managerial cadre post and the selection process was job-oriented. 2. The court found that the allocation of 50% marks for the interview was not arbitrary and was job-oriented. 3. The court held that the respondent was justified in constituting an ad-hoc selection board under the proviso to Rule 10(c) of the R and P Rules due to structural changes in the departments. 4. The court found that the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the constitution of the selection board by appearing before it without objection.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the selection process was justified and that the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the constitution of the selection board.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been brought seeking setting aside and quashment of the order of the respondent dated June 30,1990, by which respondents 2 to 10,who are junior to the petitioner, have been promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) superseding the petitioner and as such seeking mandamus for being also promoted to the said post with effect from June 1990 when his juniors have been promoted.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was selected as Flight Operations Officer and was promoted as Assistant Manager Flight Operations and according to the petitioner, he had earned good reports in his present post and being senior to respondents 2 to 10 was entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Manager Flight Operations and under the rules this was a promotional post and ought to have been filled in on the basis of seniority subject to fitness. It is urged that the respondent had not resorted to any public notice for filling such post by direct recruitment as no such notice has been put up on the notice boards of the offices of the respondent at any time as required by rule 9 (d) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short r and P Rules ). He has urged that he was advised to appear for interview on March 20, 1990 and the interview was held by Capt. G. Singh, Deputy Operations Manager (Admn.) Head Quarters, Sh. C. D souza, Flight Manager (Head Quarters) and Sh. S. V. Harale, Senior Deputy Manager (Personnel Services), Western Region, Bombay and the said selection committee " appears to have recommended the appointment of respondents 2 to 10 and he has urged that constitution of the selection committee was in violation of the rule 10 (c) which requires that the recruitment board shall comprise of: (1) Head of the Department concerned at Head Quarters; (2) Secretary; and (3) An officer to be nominated by the General Manager.
( 3 ) ANOTHER grievance raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that allocation of 50% marks for the interview lasting for a very short period for assessing the personality factors of the candidates who have put in many years of service with the Organisation and those professional and-managerial abilities have been duly rated in the annual performance appraisals is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments as the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of tne Constitution of India.
( 4 ) THE writ petition is opposed by the respondents, it is pleaded In the affidavit of Shri Daya Narain, Secretary of the respondent-Airlines that the post in question is an upper managerial cadre post and the same is filled through process of selection and he has also enumerated in para 2 (a) the various duties and functions to be performed by the incumbents of the said post and it was mentioned that the post of Chief Flight Operation Officer has been re-designated as Deputy Manager, Flight lions. It was mentioned that in resolution dated July 30,1970, passed by the of Directors it was decided that such post shall be filled in by direct recruitment from officers of the respondent and same will be treated as selection post and was controverted that this post is a promotional post to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness only. The allocation of 50% marks for the interview was also sought to be justified keeping in view the status of this post as it comes within the ranger of higher managerial posts. It was pleaded that in case the post was to be filled in from open market by direct recruitment then resort has to be made to issuing advertisements. At any rate, non-issuance of any notices as required by rule 9 has not prejudiced the petitioner who admittedly was duly considered by the Selection Committee and unfortunately was not found suitable for the said post. In the Additional affidavit filed by Sh. Vinod Kashyap, Director of the respondent, it has been mentioned that since 1970
