B. Munjal vs Indian Airlines
1999 Latest Caselaw 1127 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged by filing the writ petition the appointments of respondents 2 and 3 as an officer w.e.f. 28.8.1986 and the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 w.e.f. 1.10.1986, besides challenging the fixing of seniority vis-a-vis the petitioners who are appointed as Computer Officers on 7.4.1988 along with the 4th respondent Mrs. Om Dua and a third party Mr. U.S. Datta. The petitioners have come forward with a case that while appointing respondents 2 and 3 and 5 and 6 in the year 1986 the claims of the petitioners were not given due consideration and while appointing the petitioners on 7.4.1988 the first respondent had stated that the inter-se seniority would be intimated in due course. The claim of the petitioners is that they ought to have been appointed in 1986 and while fixing their inter-se seniority the petitioners should have placed above respondents 2 and 3, and respondents 5 and 6. On 24.4.1990 the petitioners made representation to the respondent No. 1. On 3.12.1990 a reply was sent by first respondent that the matter was under consideration. On 11.4.1991 order was passed by the first respondent rejecting the representation and the same is as under :-

"This has reference to the joint representation dated 18th Decem ber, 1990 you have made alongwith others namely S/Shri S.K. Gupta and K.S. Sandhu, Computer Operations Officers, EDP Deptt. Hqrs. to the Director of Personal, IA, Hqrs., New Delhi. Your representation has been examined and the position is as under.

You alongwith other representationists were appointed as Computer Operations Officer in the year 1988. Although yourself and others, were found suitable for promotion under Selection Quota, yet the appointments made were against, Direct Recruitment and Promotion Vacancies. Shri K.P. Rao and Shri S.S. Chaudary were appointed as Computer Operations Officers in 1986 against Direct Recruitment Vacancies. Therefore, you and others cannot claim seniority over S/Shri Rao and Choudhury.

The Management has been considerate to you and other representationists while making your and their appointment in 1988 as Computer Operations Officers though vacancies did not exist under Section Quota. Your and others claim of seniority over S/Shri Rao and Choudhury cannot be acceded to.

You and other representationists therefore, have no cause of any grievance."

2. On 21.12.1991 the writ petition was presented in this Court.

3. The case of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition is:-

"That the said successful candidates after phase II training and test were subjected to Interview test alongwith candidates from open market on 6th Jan., 1986 and Panel of about 15 internal and external candidates were prepared against the existing 13 vacancies.

The panel list is in the power and custody of Respondent No. 1 but it is reliably learnt that the following candidates including the petitioners and respondents 5 & 6 were on the panel in order of seniority and merit;

1. Mr. M.R. Sahni

2. Mr. R.K. Shrimali

3. Mr. K.C. Soni

4. Mr. U.S. Datta

5. Mr. Sudhir Gupta (petitioner)

6. Mr. B. Munjal (petitioner)

7. Mr. Karnail Singh Sandhu

8. Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao (Respondent No. 5)

9. Mr. S.S. Chaudary (Respondent No. 6)

It is submitted that in accordance with Rule 9(e) of said Recruitment & Promotion Rules, in selecting candidates preference is to be given to internal candidates and in terms of I.A. Hqrs. letter No. HPDOI/X1100 dated March 28, 1973 internal candidates will be placed on top of the panel in order of seniority. True photo copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P4."

4. According to the petitioners, respondents 2 to 4 failed to qualify in training programme and were not placed in the panel and were not eligible for reconsideration for a period of one year, as per the the guidlines issued on 2.6.1976.

5. In the counter affidavit, the position is explained by the first respondent in the following terms:-

"Para 5: That respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement in Hindustan Times on 20th February, 1985, inviting applications for the post of Real Time Computer Operation Officers/RTC Data Processing Officers. This advertisement was published in view of large number of vacancies which were created because of introduction of UNIVAC-1100 System and with a view to induct professionally qualified computer personnel.

Para 7: In reply to the contents of para 7 it is submitted that the petitioner applied against Staff Employment Notification dated 9th October, 1985, vide Notification No. 17 of 1985, and was empanelled after going through the entire selection process under selection quota.

Para 8: In reply to the contents of para 8 it is stated that there are 3 adopted modes for filing up the vacancies of Computer Operation Officers which are promotion quota/selection quota/ direct recruitment quota. The selection procedure adopted by respondent No. 1, under three modes are here as under :-

(a) Promotion Quota from within:

Promotion of employees of the Corporation (30% of vacancies are to be filled under promotion quota).

(b) Selection Quota:

Employees meeting the stipulated eligibility criteria from all departments of respondent Corporation were to be considered under the selection quota. (30% of vacancies are to be filled under selection quota).

(c) Direct Recruitment Quota :

Applications are invited from external market as will as employees of the respondent Corporation meeting the criteria stipulated from candidates from open market are also considered and given priority in appointment. (40% of the vacancies are to be filled under the direct recruitment quota). It is further submitted that the two select panels were approved after the selection process against the newspaper advertisement dated 20th February, 1985 and Staff Employment Notification No. 17/85 dated 9th October, 1985. One panel was formed under direct recruitment quota and other under selection quota.

Para 9: In reply to para 9 it is submitted that the contents of para 9 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied to state that once a candidate fails to qualify training programme/tests/interview, that candidate cannot be eligible for reconsideration for a period of one year or till his report for next appraisal year. It is submitted that failure to qualify for the said post through selection made, as in the present case, does not disqualify an employee from being reconsidered for the same post through different modes of recruitment i.e. promotion or irect recruitment.

Respondents No. 2 to 4 failed to qualify under Staff Employment Notification which does not disqualify or debar respondent No. 2 to 4 from being reconsidered for the same post through different mods of recruitment."

It is further explained:-

"It is submitted that at the time of undertaking the selection/direct recruitment exercise there were 3 vacancies to be filled up under selection made and 4 vacancies to be filled up through direct recruitment quota. Four more vacancies were to be filled up through promotion quota also. In accordance with this arrangement of filling up vacancies, three candidates who were empanelled on the selection panel were appointed as Computer Operation Officers in March, 1986 and subsequently in August, 1986 4 more candidates who were empanelled under promotion quota were appointed. Further, in October, 1986 direct recruitment quota vacancies were filled up from the direct recruitment panel. Therefore, in view of the above selection procedure the contention of petitioners that only 3 candidates were appointed, is not sustainable."

6. The first respondent had explained that it adopted three modes of recruiting personnel in accordance with the Recruitment and promotion Rules. Appointments of respondents No. 5 and 6 were under direct recruitment quota as Computer Operation Officers and it was in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. S.L. Hans submitted that the first respondent had contravened the guidelines and persons who had not passed the test held on the earlier occasions had been selected. The learned counsel submitted that the first respondent had acted illegally.

8. The learned senior counsel Mr. Rajiv Nayar for the first respondent submitted that as stated in the counter there were three different sources of recruitment and in making the appointment the first respondent had resorted to the modes provided for in the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners cannot have of any grievance when their cases had been considered for appointment and, as a matter of fact, they were appointed on 7.4.1988. The learned senior counsel submitted that the premise on which the petitioners had based their case was that in the panel prepared the petitioners were above respondents 2 and 3, and respondents 5 and 6. The learned senior counsel submitted that a perusal of the record would show that the whole basis of the case of the petitioners was unfounded. The learned senior counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in:

1. State of Gujarat Vs. C.G. Desai and others, .

2. Prabhakar Yeshwant Joshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, .

3. Ramesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 37.

4. State of Kerala and Another Vs. N.M. Thomas and others, .

5. Osmania University, represented by its Registrar, Hyderbad, A.P. Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan and Another, ."

9. The learned senior counsel also referred to the fact proceedings was issued clarifying the earlier position as could be seen from the Memorandum dated 24.5.1977 and the petitioners cannot have any grievance. The Memorandum dated 24.5.1977 reads as under:-

"Sub: Recruitment/Promotion guidelines.

As per R & P guidelines, when an employee is found unsuitable in a selection, he is debarred for reconsinderation for the same post for a period of one year or till his report for the next appraisal year is available. A question has been raised, whether an employee who has been debarred as such, can be allowed to compete for the same post alongwith external candidates in case of direct recruitment from outside. It has been decided that in such cases the restriction may not be operated."

10. The Petitioners cannot challenge the appointment of respondents 2 and 3, and respondents 5 and 6 made in August 1986 and October, 1986 respectively under the guise of seeking to get their placements in the seniority list. The first respondent had acted in accordance with Recruitment Rules and I do not find any illegality in the selection process made by the first respondent. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cases would show that it shall be open to an employer to have appointments under different source of recruitment and once the case of the petitioners had been considered, they cannot have any grievance in law. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I have not been able to see any infraction on recruitment rules by the first respondent.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.