SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.A. NAGAMANI – Appellant
Versus
INDIAN AIRLINES . – Respondent
C.A. No.-005314-005314 / 2007
27-03-2009
PETITIONER-IN-PERSONBINA GUPTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 5314 OF 2007
K.A. Nagamani
…Appellant
Versus
Indian Airlines & Ors.
…
Respondents
J U D G M E N T
B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.
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.
1
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
2
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
3
to be on the basis of merit and, therefore, found no
merit in the submission of the appellant that her
juniors (respondent nos. 3 & 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 & Ors. Vs.
Indian Airlines & 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
4
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 c