Holding

The Court held that the conditional promotions did not contravene the Recruitment and Promotion Rules because promotion is based on seniority among qualified candidates and the approval qualifications were governed by the industrial settlement, not the rules.

Summary

The appellant, an aircraft engineer, claimed seniority for promotion to Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer, arguing that he obtained the required approval qualification on 15‑Dec‑1993 while respondents 3‑17 had not. The respondents had been given conditional promotions in 1994 based on a policy decision to avoid stagnation, despite not having completed the nine‑group approval required under the industrial settlement. The Court examined whether the recruitment and promotion rules required seniority among qualified candidates and whether the approval qualifications were part of those rules or the settlement. It held that the rules prescribe promotion based on seniority among those who have qualified, and the approval qualifications were prescribed by the industrial settlement, not the rules. Consequently, the conditional promotions did not violate the rules, and the appellant’s claim of seniority was rejected. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether seniority among qualified candidates is the sole criterion for promotion under the Indian Airlines Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
Whether the approval qualifications prescribed in the 1992 industrial settlement form part of the recruitment rules or are separate.
Whether the conditional promotions granted to respondents 3‑17 in 1994 violated the recruitment and promotion rules or the settlement.
Whether the appellant is entitled to promotion based on earlier acquisition of the approval qualification, invoking Article 14 equality.

Subjects

senioritypromotionindustrial settlementconditional promotionArticle 14 equalityservice lawrecruitment and promotion rulesDGCA approvalaircraft engineerIndian Airlines

Judgment

A ASHUTOSH ...,,,
v.
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS.

APRIL 18, 2007

B [S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.)

Service Law:
•
Seniority-Entitlement of-Promotion to the post of Deputy Chief
c Aircraft Engineer-Seniority of appellant vis-a-vis respondents~Appe/lants'
case that he acquired approval qualification under the Rules for promotion
prior to respondents, thus was senior-Held: Under the Rules, criteria for
promotion was seniority amongst the qualified and not approval
qualifications-Approval qualification-approval of nine groups and licence
D ·on Jet Engine was prescribed under the Settlement filed before the Tribunal-
However, on account of stagnation of respondents, conditional promotions
given to them with retrospective effect based on policy decision thus, order
granting conditional promotions did not violate the Rules-More so, ;
respondents acquired approval qualifications at earlier point of time but
were communicated later-Also, Directorate General of Civil Aviation while
E granting approval did not go by seniority but gave approval to engineers
junior to respondents-Indian Airlines Recruitment and promotion Rules.

In terms of the settlement between the Indian Airlines and All India
Aircraft Engineers' Association the existing designations were revised. The
new post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer was a created with effect from
F 1.4.1992 to be filled from the said feeder post of Sr. Aircraft Engineer. -+ '
Appellant was redesignated as Aircraft Engineer whereas respondent nos. 3
to 17 were redesignated as Sr. Aircraft Engineer w.e.f 1.4.1989. For promotion
to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer, the Sr. Aircraft Engineer (feeder
post) had to acquire approval qualification (approval of nine groups) before
G 1.4.1995. Indian Airlines established the Jet shop in 1992 in Delhi and the
same did not get its approval in time from Directorate General of Civil Aviation.
..
Respondents 3 to 17 could not complete their eligibility before the cut off ..,/ '
date and as such became stagnant. Then by order dated 7.2.1994 respondents
3 to 17 were given conditional promotions to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft
_,
H 294
ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 295
Engineers with effect from 1.4.1992/1.4.1993 respectively. The Jet Shop was A
~
approved in February 1995. Respondents 3 to 17 were shown as senior to the
appellant in the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect from
1.4.1992/1.4.1993. It was appellant's case that it completed two years service
in the post of Sr. Aircraft Engineer on 31.3.1993 and acquired the requisite
qualification on 15.12.1993 whereas respondent nos. 3 to 17 till date have
not acquired the requisite qualification and as such were not entitled to
B
promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer and thus, Indian
Airlines had erred in showing respondents 3 to 17 as se11ior to the appellant
-<
in the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect from 1.4.1992/
1.4.1993.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1. Under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, seniority
amongst the candidates who qualified was the criteria for promotion. However,
the said Rules did not prescribe such qualifications. They were left to the
joint wisdom of the Management and the Association. The approval D
qualifications were prescribed under Settlement dated 31.3.1992. These
approval qualifications were prescribed under clause 2(d) of Appendix 'A'.
(,,
Appendix 'B' to the Settlement indicated that the candidate for promotion to
the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer had to obtain approvals of nine
groups and a licence on one Jet Engine of the Indian Airliens fleet. [Para 121
[304-A-B) E
1.2. The recitals in the Industrial Settlement show that during the
pendency of proceedings before the National Industrial Tribunal with regard
to the parity of wage structure, bilateral negotiations took place and the
settlement came to be filed before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the
eligibility criteria for appointment to various pay scales was laid down in para F
>
2(d) of Appendix 'A'. This eligibility criteria for acquiring the approval
qualification was not a part of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It was
a part of the Industrial Settlement filed before the Industrial Tribunal pending
the main dispute on the wage structure. After entering into the Settlement,
while implementing, some difficulties were detected, therefore, a decision was G
taken by the Management in consultation with the Association on 9.6.1993
as a part of Settlement to have 20% out of 49 posts to be earmarked for Sr.
Engineers. This was the decision taken as the Sr. Engineers were facing
stagnation. Therefore, one has to read the impugned Order dated 7.2.1994 by
which conditional promotions were given to respondents 3 to 17 with effect
from 1.4.1993/1.4.1994 in the light of the policy decision dated 9.6.1993 and H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Note of Discussions date 23.7.1993. In the circumstances, it cannot be said .,r
that the impugned order dated 7.2.1994, based on policy decision dated 9.6.1993
read with Note of Discussions dated 23.7.1993, violated Recruitment and
Promotion Rules. (Para 12] (304-C-F]

1.3. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below
B that respondents 3 to 17 had acquired the approval qualifications prior to
25.11.1993 but the communication of the approval by DGCA occurred only
on 20.11.1994 and that was the reason why an asterisk mark was inserted
against the names of the said respondents in the order dated 7.2.1994. This ....-
has been disputed by the appellant. According to the appellant, the Jet Shop ..
c set up in Delhi in 1992 by Indian Airlines stood approved by DGCA only in
1995 and, therefore, the management was wrong in stating respondents 3 to
17 had acquired the approval qualifications by 25.11.1993. Even assuming for
the sake of argument that respondents 3 to 17 had failed to acquire approval
qualifications till 1995, no fault could lie at the doorstep ofrespondents 3 to
17. These respondents could not avail of the opportunity of obtaining the
D approval qualifications as DGCA had not granted approval to the Jet Shop till
1995. Further, the said respondents were senior to the appellant. There were
anomalies in the master of approval qualifications which were eliminated by
)
joint discussions between the Union and the Management, as indicated by Note
of Discussions dated 23.7.1993. Moreover, the main anomaly was that while
granting approval, DGCA did not go by seniority and, consequently, approvals
E were given earlier in point of time to engineers who were junior to the
respondents which created an anomaly. There was no violation of Recruitment
and Promotion Rules. The approval qualifications formed part of the Industrial
Settlemmt filed before the Tribunal which was subsequently modified by the
policy decision dated 9.6.1993 read with Note of Discussions dated 23.7.1993
F between the Management and the Association. [Para 12] (304-F-H; 305-A-C]
...,
<.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2024 of2007.

From the Judgment and order dated 17.02.2006 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 487 of 2002.
G
P.P. Rao, R. Venkatramani and R.B. Mehrotra, Dr. LB. Gaur, S.S. Nehru, ~

Piyush Sharma, Neeraj Dutt Gaur, Abhishek Gupta and Rajendra Verma for the
Appellant.
.I '

Dushyant Dave, Lalit Bhasin, Nina Gupta, Akanksha, Neha Sharma and
H Bina Gupta for the Respondents.
ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [KAPADIA, J.] 297
~
...
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
KAPADIA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal
is whether the appellant (employee) is entitled to seniority in the matter of
promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer vis-a-vis Respondent B
nos. 3 to 17.
-<

3. On 31.3.1992, a Settlement was reached between Indian Airlines and
All India Aircraft Engineers' Association under which the then existing
designations were revised as follows:
c
"REVISION OF SCALES OF PAY:
::-
(i) With effect from 1.4.1989, the existing designations and the scales
of pay applicable will be as under:-

Existing Designation Revised Designation D
(Scale of Pay) (Scale of Pay)
'-
Asstt. Aircraft Asst!. Aircraft Engineer
., Engineer (Rs.2005-50-2105-60-
(Rs.2005-50-2105-60- 2825-70-2965)
2825-70-2965)
E

Aircraft Engineer Aircraft Engineer
(Rs.2285-60-2825-70-3035- (Rs.2765-60-2825-70-
120-3395) 3035-120-3275-EB-120-
3875) F
Sr. Aircraft Engineer
(Rs.2765-60-2825-70-3035- Aircraft Engineer
120-3875) (Rs.2765-60-2825-70-
3035-120-3275-EB-120-
. 3875)
G
, '..-
Supdtg. Aircraft Engineer Sr. Aircraft Engineer
(Rs.2965-70-3Q3.5ul20-4l15) (Rs.2965-70-3035-120-
4115)

H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.
.....
A (ii) With effect from !st April, 1992 a new cadre of Dy. Chief Aircraft
Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.3155-120-4235 will be created. The
strength of Dy. Chief Aircraft Engineers will be maintained at 20%
of the total standard force of the cadre of Aircraft Engineers
(Aircraft Engineer to Dy. Chief Aircraft Engineer)."

B 4. The ~evised designation was to operate from 1.4.1989.

5. By the said Settlement dated 31.3.1992, appellant was redesignated as
Aircraft Engineer whereas respondent nos. 3 to 17 were redesignated as Sr.
- - '

Aircraft Engineer w.e.f. 1.4. 1989. Under the said Settlement, approval qualification
had to be acquired by Sr. Aircraft Engineer (feeder post) for being promoted
c as Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer. Under the Settlement, for promotion to the
post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer, the Sr. .\ircraft Engineer had to obtain
approval of nine groups. Under the Settlement, the post of Deputy Chief
Aircraft Engineer was created for the first time with effect from 1.4.1992 to be
filled from the said feeder post of Sr. Aircraft Engineer. The candidate was
D required to acquire specified number of points before 1.4.1995. However, the
Jet Shop which \\oas established in 1992 for Delhi by Indian Airlines did not
get its approval in time from DGCA (Directorate Ge!l.eral of Civil Aviation). ,;
Therefore, the Association requested the Management to grant conditional
promotion in various grades to enable employees like respondents 3 to 17 to
complete their eligibility before the cut-off date. This request was made as
E employees like respondents 3 to 17 would have stagnated on account of
above anomalies created by Settlement dated 31.3.1992. Therefore, on 23.7.1993,
the Management and the Union entered into Discussions with regard to
conditional promotion.

6. Vide Order dated 7.2. 1°994, respondents 3 to 17 were given conditional ...,
F promotions to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineers with effect from
I.4.1992/1.4.1993 respectively. They were required to obtain nine approvals by
31.3.1995. As stated above, the Jet Shop set up by Indian Airlines for Delhi
was approved only in February, 1995, therefore, respondents 3 to 17 could not
fulfil the requisite qualification by the cut-off date. On the other hand, appellant
G herein completed two years service in the post of Sr. Aircraft Engineer on
.
31.3.1993. He acquired the requisite qualification on 15.12.1993. .,,)

7. According to the appellant, till today respondent nos. 3 to 17 have
failed to acquire approval qualification. According to the appellant, the cut-
off date, namely, 1.4.1995 has since passed. Appellant states that on 1.4.1991
H
ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [KAPADIA, J.) 299
-~ he as well as respondents 3 to 17 were Sr. Aircraft Engineers. Appellant states A
that on 7.2.1994 respondents 3 to 17 were conditionally promoted with effect
from 1.4.1992/1.4.1993. Therefore, according to the appellant, he was qualified
for promotion on 15.12.1993 whereas respondents 3 to 17 till date have not
acquired the requisite qualification. Appellant, therefore, prayed that
respondents 3 to 17 were not entitled to promotions to the post of Deputy
Chief Aircraft Engineers. It is the case of the appellant that he has been B
ultimately promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer vide order
-<- dated August, 2000 with effect from 1.10.1999. However, he has not been
given promotion as Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer from 15.12.1993 when he
acquired the qualification and, therefore, Indian Airlines had erred in showing
respondents 3 to 17 as senior to the appellant herein in the post of Deputy c
Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect fro'll 1.4.1992/ l.4.l 993.

8. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that
seniority in a cadre under the Promotion Rules did not entitle respondents 3
to 17 for promotions to the higher post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer
unless the candidate acquired the Approval Qualification prescribed by such D
Rules. It was submitted that eligibility under the said Rules was different from
' seniority. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that under the Promotion
" Rules what was contemplated was "seniority amongst the qualified". It was
submitted that appellant had acquired the qualification on 15.12.1993 and
since respondents 3 to 17 did not acquire the requisite qualification appellant
E
was entitled to be promoted not from 1.10.1999 but from 15.12.1993 and,
consequently, appellant has been discriminated vis-a-vis respondents 3 to 17
inasmuch as the said respondents were promoted with effect from 1.4.1992/
1.4.1993 herein. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the qualification

'
- prescribed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot be overruled by
Industrial Settlement dated 31.3.1992 or by Note of Discussions dated 23.7.1993. F
It was urged on behalf of the appellant that, in any event, Industrial Settlement
~ dated 31.3.1992 and the Promotion Rules had to be read in tandem; that the
Industrial Settlement retained the qualification prescribed by the Recruitment
and Promotion Rules; that even the Note of Discussions retained the said
~ qualifications but it is the Management who said that as a one time exercise,
weightage should be given to seniority and as a one time exercise respondents G
, '- 3 to 17 should be allowed to be promoted to the posts of Deputy Chief
Aircraft Engineers in terms of Order dated 7.2.1994 (Exhibit 'P-4'). It was urged
J that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules only referred to "seniority amongst
qualified" as the criteria of promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft

t Engineer which could not be eliminated either by the Industrial Settlement H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A dated 31.3.1992 or by Note of Discussions dated 23.7.1993. It was urged that
the appellant herein acquired the approval qualification on 15.12.1993 but vide •
impugned order dated 7.2.1994 the Management gave conditional promotions
to respondents 3 to 17 with effect from 1.4.1992/1.4.1993 which created
discrimination which violated the appellant's fundamental right to equality
under Article 14 of the Constitution.
B
9. Before dealing with the above arguments, we quote her,einbelow para
13 of the Indian Airlines Recruitment and Promotion Rules, as applicable to
Aircraft Engineering Department:
#- ...
;-

"The Board shall proceed to arrange their selections in order of inter-
c se seniority amongst the candidates who. have qualified (other than
the candidates who have been marked as 'outstanding' in which case
such candidates will be placed at top of the list) and shall also keep
a suitable number of candidates on the panel/waiting list. Such a
panel may be used for filling vacancies that may arise subsequently
D and will be valid for a period of two years in respect of all posts in
erstwhile Grade Y, and 3/6 (and its equivalent and one year in other
cases, from the date of the approval of such panel by the competent
)
authority whereafter the procedure as outlined above may be followed
afresh; provided however,

E (Q the Managing Director in his sole discretion and being satisfied
on the relevant considerations, may extend the validity of such
panels in other than erstwhile Grade Y, and 3/6 for a further
period of six months at one time subject to a maximum of one year
in respect of any panel.
(ii) In preparing the panel the Board shall pay attention to the circulars
F
and instructions issued by Government of India from time to time '"'" '
in matter of safeguarding adequate representation to members of
Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes etc." (emphasis supplied)

10. We also quote hereinbelow the relevant recital from the Industrial
G Settlement dated 31.3 .1992;

· "WHEREAS after signing the MOU with the Indian Airlines hereinafter
..)
called 'Management' on 26.2.1989 on their Charter of Demands for the
wage period 1.10.1985 to 31.8.1990 (copy enclosed and marked as
Annexure 'A'), the All India Aircraft Engineers' Association, hereinafter
H called "Association' asked for payment of additional qualification
ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [KAPADIA, J.] 301
pay, creation of new pay scales and certain other allowances to the A
Aircraft Engineers.

2. AND WHEREAS the Management could not accept the demand of
the Association.

3. AND WHEREAS this dispute was referred by the Central B
Government vide items Nos. (i) and (ii) as contained in the schedule
to the Order No. L.11011/3/89-IR(Misc.) dated 7th December, 1990 for
adjudication by the NIT presided over by Justice Shri S.N. Khatri.

4. AND WHEREAS parties, during the pendency of the proceedings
before the NIT, have held bilateral negotiations without prejudice to C
their rights and contentions in respect of relativity and parity of wage
structure with corresponding categories of employees of Air India and
as a result of such negotiations, have arrived at this Settlement, as a
consequence of which Terms of Reference No. (i) and (ii) of the
dispute pending before the NIT stand settled between the parties
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties in D
regard to the term of Reference No. (v) before the NIT which would
remain operative with regard to the matter of relativity/ parity vis-a-
vis Aircraft Engineers of Air India."

the relevant tenn of Settlement;
E
''2. The Qualification/ Productivity Scheme for Aircraft Engineers is
contained in Appendix 'B'. With the introduction of the revised
Qualification Pay from 1st April, 1989, the existing Qualification
Pay and Certification Allowance shall stand withdrawn from
1.4.1989 and l .8.1989 respectively."
F
the relevant clauses of Appendix 'A' ;

"2(d)Sr. Aircraft Engineer (scale of pay of Rs. 2965-70-3035-120-4115)
with two years service in the scale and on acquiring prescribed
licence/ approval qualifications for the post of Dy. Chief Aircraft
Engineer (as per Annexure I, 2 & 3 to Appendix 'B') will be G
eligible for appointment to the post of Dy. Chief Aircraft Engineer
in the scale of pay of Rs. 3155-120-4235. The appointment to the
cadre of Dy. Chief Aircraft Engineer; will, however, be subject to
availability of vacancies as per the Standard Force and Recruitment
and Promotion Rules.
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Xxx
3(iiI) The existing Sr. Aircraft Engineers appointed in the pay scale of
Rs. 2765-60-2825-70-3035-120-3875 prior to 1.4.1989 would be re-
designated as Aircraft Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 2765-60-
2825-70-3035-120-3275-EB-120-3875 w.e.f. 1.4.1989. These Engineers
B will be eligible for consideration for the post of Sr. Aircraft
Engineers in the pay scale of Rs. 2965-70-3035-120-4115 w.e.f.
1.4.1991 onwards subject, however, to possession of prescribed
licence/ approval qualifications and confinnation.
4. All appointments to the cadre of Aircraft Engineer, Sr. Aircraft
C Engineer and Dy. Chief Aircraft Engineer will be subject to
Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The processing of such
appointments for Sr. Aircraft Engineer and Dy. Chief Aircraft
Engineers will be done with reference to the DGCA examination
session. The appointments to the cadre of Sr. Aircraft Engineer
will, however, take place from the month following the month in
D which the prescribed qualification/ experience have been acquired
by the Aircraft Engineer. The appointment from Sr. Aircraft
Engineer to Dy. Chief Aircraft Engineer will be subject to
availabilit)> of vacancies as per the Standard Force and Recruitment
and Promotion Rules."

E and, the relevant clause of Appendix 'B':
"A. Qualifications requirement for appointment
Designation Qualifications
Aircraft Engineer 'C' licence on one jet engine
F (entry into pay of IA fleet.
scale) Confirmation
Subject to obtaining
approvals of any two groups
of Enclosure l .

G Crossing EB 'C' licence on one jet engine
Stage of IA fleet and approvals of
any. three groups of
enclosure 1.

H Sr. Aircraft Engineer 'C' licence on one jet Engine
ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. (KAPADIA, J.] 303
of IA fleet an~ approvals of A
any six groups of Enclosure 1.

Dy. Chief Ale Engineer 'C' licence on one jet Engine
of IA fleet and approvals of
any nine groups of
Enclosure 1." B
I I. We also quote hereinbelow the relevant excerpt of Note of
Discussions dated 23.7.1993:

"After detailed deliberation, the following decisions were arrived at:-

(i) That Engineers who have not been given opportunity for training C
on jet aircraft and Shop/ Major Maintenance approvals, as on
l.4.I993, will be given conditional promotions.
(it) Turbo prop aircraft licences held by engineers will be considered
for promotion only as a one time exercise till 1.4.93 and such
engineers will be given conditional promotion. D
(fu) Wherever all group approvals in Engine Overhaul shops as per
the new agreement dated 31st March, 1992 have not become
operative, the Engine Overhaul Trade Engineers will be promoted
on conditional basis subject to the followfng:-
(a) They must obtain 'C' licence on jet aircraft of IA fleet for E
which training has already been imparted to them within
three t:onsecutive DGCA chances effective 1.4.1993.

(b) They must obtain desired group approvals as per the clause
(i), (ii) and (iii) shall have to obtain qualifications within three
consecuti~e DGCA chances after getting training with effect F
from 1.4:1993, failing which they will be reverted to their
substantive pay scales.

(iv) The engineers who are promoted oil conditional basis as per
clause (i), (ii) and (iii) shall have to obtain qualifications within
three consecutive DGCA chances after getting training with effect G
from l.4.1993, failing which they will he reverted to their
substantive pay scales.
All other tenns and conditions of the agreement dated 31st March,
1992 will remain unchanged."
(emphasis supplied) H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A I 2. For the following reasons, we do not find any merit in this civil
appeal. Firstly, under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, seniority amongst
the candidates who qualified was the criteria for promotion. However, the said
Rules did not prescribe such qualifications. They were left to the joint wisdom
of the Management and the Association. The approval qualifications were
B prescribed under Settlement dated 3 I .3 .1992. These approval qualifications
were prescribed under clause 2(d) of Appendix 'A', quoted hereinabove.
Appendix 'B' to the Settlement indicated that the candidate for promotion to
the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer had to obtain approvals of nine
groups and a licence on one Jet Engine of the Indian Airlines fleet. In the
present case, the recitals in the Industrial Settlement quoted hereinabove
C show that during the pendency of proceedings before the National Industrial
Tribunal wirh regard to the parity of wage structure, bilateral negotiations
took place and the Settlement herein came to be filed before the Industrial
Tribunal. Therefore, the eligibility criteria for appointment to various pay
scales was laid down in the above quoted para 2(d) of Appendix ' A' . This
eligibility criteria for acquiring the approval qualification was not a part of the
D Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It was a part of the Industrial Settlement
filed before the Industrial Tribunal pending the main dispute on the wage
structure. After entering into the Settlement, while implementing, some
difficulties were detected, therefore, a decision was taken by the Management
in consultation with the Association on 9.6.1993 (Annexure P-2) as a part of
E Settlement to have 20% out of 49 posts to be eannarked for Sr. Engineers. This
was the decision taken as the Sr. Engineers were facing stagnation. Therefore,
one has to read the impugned Order dated 7.2.1994 by which conditional
promotions were given to respondents 3 to 17 with effect from 1.4.1993/
l.4.1994 in the light of the policy decision dated 9.6.1993 and Note of
Discussions dated 23 .7.1993. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the
F impugned order dated 7.2.1994, based on policy decision dated 9.q.1993 read
with Note of Discussions dated 23.7.1993, violated Recruitment and Promotion
Rules. Secondly, there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts
below that respondents 3 to 17 had acquired the approval qualifications prior
to 25.11 .1993 but the communication of the approval by DGCA occurred only
G on 20.11.1994 and that was the reason why an asterisk mark was inserted
against the names of the said respondents in the order dated 7.2.1994. This
has been disputed by the appellant. According to the appellant, the Jet Shop
set up in Delhi in 1992 by Indian Airlines stood approved by DGCA only in
1995 and, therefore, the management was wrong in stating that respondents
3 to 17 had acquired the approval qualifications by 25. J l.1993. Be that as it
H may, even assuming for the sake of argument that respondents 3 to 17 had
ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [KAPADIA , J.] 305
failed to acquire approval qualifications till 1995, no fault could lie at the A
doorstep of respondents 3 to 17. These respondents could not avail of the
opportunity of obtaining the approval qualifications as DGCA had not granted
approval to the Jet Shop till 1995. Further, as stated hereinabove, the said
respondents were senior to the appellant. Further, as stated hereinabove,
there were anomalies in the matter of approval qualifications which were
eliminated by joint discussions between the Union and the Management, as B
indicated by Note of Discussions dated 23.7.1993. Moreover, as stated above,
the main anomaly was that while granting approval, DGCA did not go by
seniority and, consequently, approvals were given earlier in point of time to
engineers who were junior to the respondents which created an anomaly. For
the above reasons, there is no need to discuss various judgments cited on C
behalf of the appellants since we have come to the conclusion that there was
no violation of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The approval qualifications
fonned part of the Industrial Settlement filed before the Tribunal which was
subsequently modified by the policy decision dated 9.6.1993 read with Note
of Discussions dated 23.7.1993 between the Management and the Association.
D
13. For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in this civil appeal and
the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.