Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 362 (DEL)

GAYA PRASHAD v. INDIAN AIRLINES

2001-09-04

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

body2001
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to confirm the petitioner in the post of Assistant manager (Flight Operations) and to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight operations) with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be restrained from reverting the petitioner to the post of Operations superintendent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as Operations superintendent at the Palam Airport, New Delhi, when his, case for promotion to the post of assistant Manager was considered by the respondents. On 19/04/1994, an order was passed by the respondents promoting four officer, including the petitioner, to the post of Assistant manager (Flight Operations ). The said appointment was, however, made subject to the provisions of service Regulation 9. It was also clearly stipulated In the said order that the confirmation of the petitioner would be subject to his (a) passing the Flight Despatch Course for which he would be given not more than two chances and (b) obtaining RT Licence. It Is stated In the petition that on 13/12/1985, 12 persons were promoted by the respondents to the post of assistant Manager without laying down any such condition of passing the above Flight Despatch course which was made a condition in the case of the petitioner. It is also stated that the said persons were subsequently confirmed and that all the promotions and confirmation in the post of assistant Manager have taken place without any of the persons having completed the said Course. It is also stated that the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Deputy manager (Flight Operations) but, the case of the petitioner either for confirmation in the post of assistant Manager (Flight Operations) or Tor promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight operations) was not considered by the respondents and instead an intimation was sent to the petitioner on 15/12/1998 threatening the petitioner of his reversion to the substantive post of Operations Superintendent. ( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid condition incorporated in the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 19/04/1994 is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India as no such condition was attached to similarly situated twelve persons who were promoted by the respondents to the same post of Assistant Manager (Flight Operations) on 13/12/1985. In the light thereof, it was submitted that the imposition of the aforesaid condition was arbitrary and bad in law. It was also submitted that the petitioner, therefore, after he had completed the period of probation which was for a period of one year should have been confirmed in the post of Assistant Manager (Flight operations) and thereafter promoted to the post of deputy Manager (Flight Operations) in due course, on/or before when persons Junior to him were promoted. ( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the imposition of the aforesaid condition of passing the Flight Despatch course was not arbitrary. My attention was drawn to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that an understanding was arrived at with the recognised association (Airlines Radio Officers and Flight operations Officers Association) representing the category of Flight Operations Officers and the respondent/airlines on 23/10/1979 which provided that in future, all appointments in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,100. 00-1,880. 00, then designated as assistant Manager (Flight Operations) would be on the basis of selection, subject to availability of vacancies and also the candidates passing the required Flight Despatch Course. It was also stated that on 27/08/1990, the Director, operations, issued instructions providing for newly appointed Flight Operations Officers [re-designated as Assistant Manager (Flight Operations)] to undergo probation for a period of one year and further that confirmation in service was subject to fulfilment of two conditions, namely, (a) Passing the Flight Despatch Course, for which they would be given not more that two chances and (b ). Obtaining rt Licence. It is also stated that the requirement of obtaining RT Licence was done away with subsequently and Instructions to the aforesaid effect were issued on 15/06/1995. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was appointed on 19/04/1994 and, therefore, the petitioner is governed by the requirement of passing the Flight despatch Course before confirmation in terms of the aforesaid instructions dated 27/08/1990. It is also stated that the requirement of obtaining RT Licence was done away with subsequently and Instructions to the aforesaid effect were issued on 15/06/1995. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was appointed on 19/04/1994 and, therefore, the petitioner is governed by the requirement of passing the Flight despatch Course before confirmation in terms of the aforesaid instructions dated 27/08/1990. Twelve persons who were promoted by the respondents to the post of Assistant Manager (Plight Operations), without such a condition, were promoted in the year 1985, that is, prior to the enforcement of the aforesaid instructions. Therefore, these two set of cases cannot be equated and, therefore, no case of discrimination is made out in the present case. Since instructions were issued by the respondents that passing of the aforesaid Flight Despatch course is an essential requirement for confirmation, therefore, neither the petitioner could have been confirmed in the said post nor he could have been promoted to the next higher post, namely, to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight operations) where also one of the basic requirements is passing of the Flight Despatch course to get promotion to the said post of Deputy manager (Flight Operations ). ( 6 ) THE confirmation of the petitioner was definitely subject to passing of the aforesaid course for which the petitioner was entitled to get two chances as it was stipulated that for passing the said Flight Despatch Course, the concerned person would not be given more than two chances. The records disclose that the petitioner has in fact been given four chances but still the petitioner has not been able to pass the said flight Despatch Course. The substantive post which the petitioner holds is that of the Operations superintendent. The petitioner has also not been reverted to the said post of Operations superintendent although a warning was sent to the petitioner that in case he is unable to clear the said Course in the said chance, he would be reverted back to his substantive post of Operations superintendent. The said warning was sent to the petitioner on 15/12/1998, on receipt of which the petitioner approached this Court. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has been given the scope and was provided with more chances than he was otherwise entitled to. The said warning was sent to the petitioner on 15/12/1998, on receipt of which the petitioner approached this Court. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has been given the scope and was provided with more chances than he was otherwise entitled to. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the discussions above, I find no merit in this petition and the petition stands dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. However, it is ordered that, the petitioner shall be given one more chance to complete the Flight despatch Course and in case he clears the said course in the next chance, he shall not be reverted back to the post of Operations Superintendent. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.