Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 380 (AP)

Indian Airlines Limited v. Shakelly Mohan and six

2002-03-07

body2002
S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal by the management of the Indian Airlines is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26. 8. 1997 in W. P. No. 7356 of 1995. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein viz. , Shakelly Mohan is the petitioner in the writ petition. He filed the above writ petition praying for the following relief. "petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and all for records and proceedings relating to an connected with the impugned Establishment order No. 70 of 1995 dated 28/03/1995 (Ref. No. HPDO1/p-1201) issued by the General Manager (Personnel) Indian Airlines Limited (Headquarters) Airlines House, New Delhi-1 and quash the same in so far as Respondents 3 to 8 are concerned and issue a consequential direction directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claims of the petitioner with reference to the guidelines that were in force prior to 25/10/1994 and to promote him with retrospective effect from 28/03/1995 with all consequential benefits. " ( 3 ) THE relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under :at the relevant point of time when the petitioner came under zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher post i. e. post of Manager (personnel), he was assigned rank No. 12 in the final seniority list of the feeder cadre, i. e. Deputy Manager (personnel ). There were set of guidelines governing promotion to the post of Manager (Personnel) before 25. 10. 1994 and those guidelines were replaced by new guidelines which were brought into force with effect from 25. 10. 1994. The Departmental Promotion Committee (for short d. P. C. ) constituted by the management of the Indian Airlines met on 28. 2. 1995 and empanelled 11 officers from among the officers who came under zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Manager (Personnel ). The said list does not include the name of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner assails the validity of that empanelment. 2. 1995 and empanelled 11 officers from among the officers who came under zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Manager (Personnel ). The said list does not include the name of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner assails the validity of that empanelment. According to the petitioner, the action of the management in empanelling only 11 officers by applying the new guidelines which came into force with effect from 25. 10. 1994 was illegal and the management ought to have applied the old guidelines and if it were to apply the old guidelines, his case should have been considered and he should have been promoted to the post of Manager (Personnel ). ( 4 ) OPPOSING the writ petition, the management filed a detailed counter affidavit. In para 22 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated as under :"it is submitted that General Manager (Personnel), Airlines House, Head Quarters, New Delhi vide his letter dated 7/10/1994 had indicated the Standard Force of Officers in the erstwhile Grade 10/12 and above in the personnel department. The Standard Force of Managers (Personnel)/ir/hrd) is 26. As on 7/10/1994, the date of the circular, the strength of the Managers was 19, not 18 as quoted by the petitioner thus leaving 7 vacant posts to be filled up as on 7/10/1994. " ( 5 ) THE learned Single judge, placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Y. V. RANGAIAH Vs. SREENIVASA RAO, AIR 1983 SC 852 P. MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, AIR 1990 SC 405 and in P. MURUGESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU, 1993 (1) SLR 830 has opined that the Rules which were in vogue governing promotion to the post of Manager (Personnel) at the stage of initiation for selection should have been applied and not the new Rules which were brought into force with effect from 25. 10. 1994. The learned Judge, so opining, found fault with the impugned empanelment and disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :" The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the claims advanced by the petitioner with reference to the guidelines which were in force prior to 25. 10. 1994 and to promote the petitioner with effect from the date from which the petitioner became eligible for promotion in accordance with such guidelines, with due seniority. 10. 1994 and to promote the petitioner with effect from the date from which the petitioner became eligible for promotion in accordance with such guidelines, with due seniority. " ( 6 ) HENCE this writ appeal by the management of the Indian Airlines. The learned counsel appearing for the management would contend that even accepting the plea of the writ petitioner that the old guidelines alone should have been applied in the preparation of the panel of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Manager (Personnel), the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance because even by applying those old guidelines, as many as nine officers who are seniors to the writ petitioner in the feeder cadre of Deputy Manager (Personnel) are qualified themselves to be considered and promoted to the post of Manager (personnel ). A table of marks obtained by the candidates in the selection for the post of Manager (Personnel) is placed before us. It is as follows : MARKS OBTAINED BY THE CANDIDATES IN THE SELECTION FOR THE POST OF MANAGER (PERSONNEL) ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was assigned rank No. 12 in the final seniority list of the feeder cadre of the Deputy Manager (Personnel ). If the management were to apply old guidelines, which were holding the field prior to 25. 10. 1994, even then, since as many as nine officers in the feeder cadre who are seniors to the writ petitioner have secured 60 and more marks, promotion of the petitioner to the post of Manager (Personnel) overlooking his seniors would not arise. In that view of the matter, in law, the petitioner could not have any legitimate grievance at all against promotions of seven of his seniors who are promoted to the post of Manager (Personnel ). However, Sri D. V. Seetharam Murthy, would contend that if that is the position in law, even then, the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion against the additional vacancies that arose during the panel-year which commenced on 25. 2. 1995. We are not called upon to decide the entitlement of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the post of Manager (personnel) in terms of the new guidelines during the panel year commencing from 25. 2. 1995. 2. 1995. We are not called upon to decide the entitlement of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the post of Manager (personnel) in terms of the new guidelines during the panel year commencing from 25. 2. 1995. If, in fact, any additional vacancies apart from Seven (7) vacancies arose during the panel-year and those vacancies are filled up by the management of the Indian Airlines in breach of the new guidelines or if it is otherwise illegal, it is open for the petitioner to agitate his grievance in an appropriate, independent legal proceeding. There is neither any pleading nor proof that such a thing has been done by the management of the Indian Airlines. However, we make it clear that we leave that issue open and if that is the case, we reserve liberty to the writ petitioner to work out his legal remedies in an appropriate, independent legal action. ( 8 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that any of his juniors in the feeder cadre of Deputy Manager (Personnel) was considered and promoted overlooking or superceding the petitioner against any of those aforementioned seven vacancies which arose when the old guidelines were in vogue. In that view of the matter, the kind of direction now issued by the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal would not be justified or legal. ( 9 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition, with no order as to costs. However, we make it clear that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner agitating his grievance about any promotion made to the post of Manager (Personnel) subsequent to the filling of seven posts by the seniors of the petitioner in the feeder cadre in an independent legal action, if he is so advised.