ORDER 1. The appellant is the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, established under the provisions of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, which gives technical education of a very high standard to students. The Institute has a department known as "Aeronautical Engineering Department" in which technical education is imparted to students with respect to several aspects of aeronautics. For this purpose, the Institute owns two Piper aircrafts, one Cessna aircraft and one Hansa aircraft. We are informed by Mr. Ganguli, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, that these aircrafts are flown periodically and used for teaching several aspects of aeronautical engineering to the students. 2. Under the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 read with the rules framed there under (the Aircraft Rules, 1937) all such aircrafts, even if they be privately owned, have to be maintained by qualified engineers licensed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (in short "DGCA") with regard to the type of aircraft they are required to maintain. 3. By an advertisement dated 23-12-1987 the appellant advertised several posts and one such post was the post of Maintenance Engineer (Aircraft). The qualification mentioned for eligibility to apply for the said post was BTech in Aeronautical or Mechanical Engineering. Respondent 1 applied in response to the advertisement. He was an AIME, recognised as equivalent to BTech or BE in the subject concerned and was also working in the Indian Air Force in the Maintenance Department. He also held certificates issued by the competent authority of the Indian Air Force that he was qualified to maintain HT 2, Dakota and Gnat aircrafts. The respondent was issued an appointment letter dated 20-9-1988. The appointment letter contained a probation clause .n the following terms: "4. Probation.-Subject to the provisions of the rules and statutes, this appointment is made on probation for a period of one year and till the necessary certificates for maintenance of the Institute aircraft are obtained from the date of joining. However, the appointing authority shall have the power to extend the period of probation. The appointment a will be confirmed on permanent basis, after satisfactory completion of the probationary period." 4. This condition was stipulated because in order to be employed as Maintenance Engineer for the aircrafts possessed and used by the appellant Institute, the first respondent had to be licensed under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 for maintenance of such types of aircrafts. The appointment a will be confirmed on permanent basis, after satisfactory completion of the probationary period." 4. This condition was stipulated because in order to be employed as Maintenance Engineer for the aircrafts possessed and used by the appellant Institute, the first respondent had to be licensed under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 for maintenance of such types of aircrafts. The letter of appointment t also called upon the first respondent to signify as to whether the offer of appointment was acceptable to him and to join duties. By a reply dated 3-11-1988 the first respondent accepted the terms of employment and stated inter alia: "I shall abide by the terms and conditions given in the abovementioned appointment letter." 5. On 13-3-1989 the first respondent was issued a letter reminding him that he would have to obtain the necessary licence for maintenance of the aircrafts of the Institute and called upon to inform the authorities as to the progress made by him for obtaining the requisite maintenance licence. On 17 -3-1989 the first respondent sent a reply to the Dean, Aircraft Engineering Department informing him that under the DGCA Rules the examination for (Aircraft Maintenance Engineers are held twice a year; that the second examination was due in September 1989 in which he would appear; that he would submit his examination form in the month of July 1989 and that he was preparing for the said examination. Again by a letter dated 5-7-1989 the first respondent was reminded that as per clause 4 of his appointment letter his confirmation was subject to his obtaining the AME licence within a reasonable time and requested to intimate the progress made in the said direction. On 24-7-1989 the first respondent informed the Head, Aeronautical Engineering Department that he had already submitted his examination form for appearing in the AME licence exam for September cycle and that he was also preparing for his examination. On 1-12-1989 the first respondent was informed that since he had not produced the requisite AME licence as required by the letter of appointment, his probationary period had been extended for a period of one year with effect from 3-11-1989 on the same terms and conditions as contained in the letter of appointment. On 1-12-1989 the first respondent was informed that since he had not produced the requisite AME licence as required by the letter of appointment, his probationary period had been extended for a period of one year with effect from 3-11-1989 on the same terms and conditions as contained in the letter of appointment. On 22-10-1990 the first respondent addressed a letter to the Dean of Faculty, IIT, Kanpur, informing him that he had already appeared in the March 1990 session for a category Cat. A&C (Cessna aircraft) examination and the result was expected in November December 1990. If he passed the said examination, he would have to appear for practical and oral examination and after passing these examinations he would get AME licence with regard to Cat. A&C (Cessna). In case he passed partially, then he would have to appear in January/February.1991 examination for Piper aircraft, which would be followed by practical and oral examination. Finally, he stated, "I therefore request that my present term of employment may please be extended further to enable me to acquire requisite licence for Institute aircrafts". 6. On 21-12-1990 an office order was passed by which the first respondent was informed as under: "OFFICE ORDER Further to Letter No. Estt. 4493 (FA)/89-IITK/4183 dated 1-12-1989, the term of probationary period of Shri P.N. Tewari, Maintenance Engineer (Aircraft), Department of Aerospace Engineering, has been extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 4-12-1990 on the same terms and conditions contained in the original Appointment Letter No. DF/D1/(FA)/IITK/88/1333 dated 13/20-9-1988 with the stipulation that no further extension will be given. sd/ (V. Sundararajan) Dean, Faculty Affairs" 7. The respondent challenged the office order by his Writ Petition No. 22284 of 1991 before the High Court. In the said writ petition the substantive prayer made and the relief sought was quashing of the office order dated 21-12-1990. 8. The writ petition was allowed by the impugned judgment of the High Court which peculiarly has travelled much beyond the relief prayed for in the writ petition and directed that the first respondent was entitled for consideration of permanent appointment on the post in question despite the fact that he had not obtained the AME licence for maintenance of the aircrafts of the Institute. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Institute has drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Rule 61 provides that for the purpose of Rule 54 the appropriate authority prescribed by the Central Government may grant licences, authorisations and approvals to persons to act in the capacity of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers, authorised or approved persons and to sign, in connection with construction, repair, overhaul and maintenance of aircraft, such certificates as may be prescribed by the Director General or required under the Rules. 10. Rule 54 provides that the certification required under Parts VI, XII-B and XIII-A of the Rules shall be signed by appropriately licensed engineers or authorised persons qualified under the terms and conditions of the licence issued by DGCA or by an approved person or persons authorised by organisation approved by DGCA in that behalf. 11. We have been taken through the Rules in Parts VI, XII-B and XIII-A. These provisions relate to persons who privately own aircraft which are required to be kept in good repair, maintained and kept in good condition. Even such persons working as Maintenance Engineers have to be licensed by DGCA or the other authorities prescribed under the Act and the Rules, for obvious reasons. Whenever an aircraft flies, there is danger to the lives of the persons flying in the aircraft as well as to the persons in the vicinity if the aircraft is not properly maintained as a result of which it crashes. Hence, there are stringent requirements under the Aircraft Act read with the Aircraft Rules that the aircraft be maintained at all times in proper condition and certified to be airworthy in accordance with the Rules by the Maintenance Engineers holding licence in accordance with the Rules. That was the reason why the appellant Institute had .called upon the first respondent to produce a licence of the requisite type from DGCA. This was exactly what was I understood by the first respondent also, as evident from the correspondence between him and the appellant Institute. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent took up the stand that there was no obligation on the part of the first respondent to produce such a licence. This was exactly what was I understood by the first respondent also, as evident from the correspondence between him and the appellant Institute. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent took up the stand that there was no obligation on the part of the first respondent to produce such a licence. He repeatedly contended that there was no such requirement indicated in the advertisement of the vacancy and, therefore, the respondent was not obliged to produce any such licence. We are unable to accept this contention. In the first place, as rightly contended by Mr. Ganguli, what is required by law must be read overridingly into every contract of employment. That the Rules require a licence for a person to be employed as Maintenance Engineer of an aircraft is clear, irrespective of whether the advertisement prescribed it or not. Such a requirement must be read into the advertisement and to the contract of employment. Apart therefrom, the letter of appointment in clear term states (vide clause 4) that the first respondent was required to produce an AME licence for the requisite type of aircraft owned by the Institute. This was clearly understood by the first respondent, as seen from his correspondence wherein he did not deny such a requirement, but kept asking for time and extension of probation. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is, therefore, without merit and cannot be accepted. 13. The High Court wholly erred in interfering with the office order dated 21-12-1990. The appellant Institute was perfectly justified in putting an outer limit of time within which the requisite licence had to be obtained and produced by the first respondent. Perhaps, the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition as being premature. Surprisingly, not only was it allowed by the High Court, but a direction was issued to the appellant to consider the first respondent for permanent post which, to say the least, is contrary to the legal provisions. 14. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside. 15. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court with no order as to costs.