The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Recruitment Rules, specifically Rule 9, Rule 18, and Rule 19, in determining seniority and consequential promotion.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Notice.

2. Ms. Madhumita Bora, Advocate accepts notice.

3. The grievance raised in this appeal is with respect to Single Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.01.2017 whereby petitioner i.e. late Sh. J. Chandra Hassan’s claim for seniority and consequential promotion was granted. Sh. J. Chandra Hassan and one J. Sathyanarayan were both appointed as Assistant Manager (Security) in consequence of a direct recruitment process conducted in 1993. A panel was prepared on 11.11.1993. The petitioner-J. Chandra Hassan’s grievance was that though he was well-merited, he was treated junior to J. Sathyanarayan on the ground that the latter was senior to him within the organisation. On this grievance, unable to secure any departmental redress, he had approached this Court by filing a W.P. (C) 2333/1997. The Court after appreciating the circumstances and the submissions of the parties had allowed the writ petition on 01.07.2013 essentially placing reliance on Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules. The Air India was aggrieved and carried the matter in appeal i.e. LPA 690/2013, which was allowed on 07.03.2014 and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration to the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge repeated the reasoning in the previous order and over ruled the Air India’s contention with respect to applicability of Rules 18 & 19 of the Recruitment Rules.

4. It is argued on behalf of Air India that Rule 9 deals with emergency recruitment and has no application to the facts of this case. It was submitted that the reliance placed upon proviso to Rule 9 therefore is inapt inasmuch as, read in isolation, it suggests that those who obtain higher merit have to be ranked at senior position in the merit/seniority list. Air India relies upon Rules 18 & 19 in this regard, which read as follows: -

"18. Selection from within Indian Airlines Successful Candidates (i.e. those who have obtained 60% marks and above) will be placed on a panel in order of seniority. For this purpose persons in the higher grade will be ranked senior to persons in the lower grade. Within each grade seniority will be reckoned by length of service in the grade. Those of the candidates who have obtained 80% marks and above will be termed as 'Outstanding'. They will be given priority for appointment but, on appointment, their seniority vis-a-vis persons appointed in the same batch with them will be in the order shown in the panel mentioned above.

19. Direct Recruitment from outside Indian Airlines:

If there are any successful internal candidates (i.e. those who have obtained 60% marks and above) they will be placed on top of the panel in order of seniority as mentioned in para 18 above."

5. This Court notices at the outset that the petitioner-late J. Chandra Hassan died during the proceedings and his name was substituted by his legal heirs. The respondent in the original writ proceedings- J. Sathyanarayan—impleaded by an order of this Court, did not choose to contest the proceedings. The only issue is whether the Single Judge committed an error in holding that the proviso to Rule 9 applies as opposed to Rules 18 & 19 of the Recruitment Rules.

6. Rule 9 in its entirety reads as follows: -

“All posts available for direct recruitment shall be given the widest possible publicity and, in particular, the following steps shall be taken:

(a) An advertisement incorporating the minimum qualifications and experience necessary for all posts, except those in grade I and II shall be inserted in such of the leading newspapers as may appear necessary.

(b) All applications received at Headquarters and Regions shall be registered in the Administrative & Personnel Branch and a record of the same maintained by a classification into occupational groups.

(c) Local Employment Exchange may be approached in case of recruitment to grade I & II and may be approached in other cases also with a view to suggesting suitable candidates.

(d) A public notice indica