Holding

Experience as Master and Pilot may be clubbed together to meet the ten‑year requirement, and no merit is found in the allegation of suppression of material information.

Summary

The New Mangalore Port Trust advertised a vacancy for Deputy Conservator, requiring ten years of experience as a Master of a foreign‑going ship or in pilotage/dredging. Captain Subhash Kumar (respondent No.4) had six years as Master and nine years as Pilot, while the appellant had two years as Master and eleven years as Pilot. Kumar was appointed after an interview, but the appellant challenged the appointment on two grounds: (1) that experience as Master and Pilot could not be combined to meet the ten‑year requirement, and (2) that Kumar had suppressed a material incident of a ship sinking. The High Court initially set aside the appointment, but the Division Bench allowed it, holding that the two experiences could be clubbed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the regulations do not prohibit clubbing the two types of experience, that the nature and functions of a Master and a Pilot are similar, and that the Ministry’s examination found no merit in the suppression allegation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appointment upheld.

Issues considered

Whether experience as Master of a foreign‑going ship and experience as a Pilot can be clubbed together to satisfy the ten‑year experience requirement for the post of Deputy Conservator under the New Mangalore Port Trust Regulations, 1991.
Whether the alleged suppression of a material fact (the sinking incident) by the respondent renders his appointment invalid.

Legislation cited

Major Port Trusts Act, 1963s. 124, s. 28, s. 2(n)
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958s. 3(13), s. 3(22)

Subjects

service lawrecruitmentexperience requirementclubbing of experiencemajor port trustdeputy conservatormaster of shippilotsuppression of material factadministrative law

Judgment

,._ CAPT. KARAN VASWANI A
...._.,
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH29, 2000

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JI.] B

Service Law :

The New Mangalore Port Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Department)
Regulations, 1991-Regulations 3(i), 5, 9 & JO-Recruitment-To the post to
Deputy Conservator-Requirement of JO years experience as Master offoreign
c
going ship or as Pilot-Nature and functions of a Master and a Pilot being
similar-JVhether the experiences ofboth the posts can be clubbed together for
the purpose of recruitment-Held, Yes,-The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963-
Sections 2(n) and 124-Tlze Mangalore Port (Authorisation of Powers) Regu-
lations, 1980-Merr:hant Shipping Act, 1958-ss. 3( 13), 3(22). D

Appellant and respondent No. 4 applied for appointment to the post
of Deputy Conservator, the experience required for which was 10 years
as Master of foreign going ship or in pilotage and dredging in a Major
Port Trust Respondent No. 4 had the experience of 6 years as Master and
E
9 years as a pilot and the appellant's experience was 2 years as Master
and 11 years as Pilot. After the interview respondent No. 4 was appointed.
• In the interview, one incident of sinking was specifically asked from the
respondent No. 4. The appellant had made representation to the Govern-
ment wherein it was alleged by the appellant that the respondent No. 4
had suppressed the incident of sinking. This representation was consid- F
ered by the Ministry of Surface and Transport and it did no find any
merit in that.

The appellant challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 in
the High Court by filing a Writ Petition, which was allowed by Single G
Judge holding that respondent No. 4 was not eligible to be appointed on
the post as he did not possess experience as provided in the Schedule to
.... the Registrations. In appeal the Division Bench dismissed the writ peti-
tion, holding that the experience as Master and Pilot can be clubbed
together for considering 10 years experience. H
745
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.

·---·
A In appeal to this court, the appellant contended that the post of
'Master' does not include in its ambit the post of 'Pilot' and that the
respondent was guilty of suppression of material information (the incident
of sinking), which, if known, would have debarred him from appointment.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
B
HELD : 1.1. There is no prohibition in the regulations in clubbing of
the two experiences as Master and Pilot. Regulation 3(i) of The New
Mangalore Port Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Department) Regulations, -
·1991 has equated the two experience. H the contention of the appellant is
accepted, it will mean that despite having vast experience but less than 10
c years as Master of foreign-going ship and having equally vast experience as
a Pilot, a person would still be ineligible for being considered for the post of
Deputy Conservator. (749-G-H; 750-A]

1.2. The post of 'Master' does not include in it the post of 'Pilot'.
D However that by itself does not show that the experience as a master of
foreign~going ship cannot be clubbed with the experience of a pilot to
satisfy the recruitment of experience provided in the regulations for the
post of Deputy Conservator. (749-C]

1.3. The nature and functions of a Master and a Pilot are similar.
E Both have to possess certificate of competency as Master of foreign-going
ship. The Union of India has throughout understood and implemented the
stipulation about experience, to mean the total experience, either as Pilot or
as a Master and clubbing the two, has considered the case of recruitment in
the past as well. It cannot be said that the interpretation placed by the
respondents is not reasonable or is impermissible. (750-C-E]
F
2. There is no substance in the contention that respondent had· sup-
pressed the material fact regarding sinking incident. There is no infirmity
in the approach of the Ministry. Further, admittedly for the post of Deputy
Conservator, neither attestation form is required to be filled nor any such
G form was filled which is unlike the requirement to be complied with at the
time of appointment as a Pilot. [750-G-H]

--
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2281-83 of (

2000.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.97 of the Kamataka High
CAPT. KARAN VASWANI v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 747
Court in W.A. No. 8510-12of1996. A
P.P. Rao, M. Rama Jois, P.P. Malhotra, T.L.V. Iyer, A.P. Dhamija;
Pradeep Aggarwal, Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Sushi! Kr. Jain. N.P.S. Panwar, S.N.
Bhat, Ms. Smita Inna, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Subramonium Prasad and Arvind K.
Shanna for the appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Y.K. SABHARWAL J. Leave granted.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28 read with Section 124
of The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, The New Mangalore Port Trust (Recruit-
c
ment of Heads of Department) Regulations, 1991 have been framed. Regula-
tion 5 provides for method of recruitment and Regulations 9 and 10 provide
for application for direct recruitment and their eligibility etc. The recruitment
to various posts including that of Deputy Conservator is governed by these
Regulations. A post of Deputy Conservator fell vacant in November, 1994. It D
was sought to be filled by appointment by direct recruitment. Besides others,
appellant and respondent no. 4 - Captain Subhash Kumar submitted their
applications. We are only concerned with the appellant and Captain Kumar.
Both were interviewed. Captain Kumar was selected and appointed as Deputy
Conservator. The appellant challenged his appointment by filing a writ petition E
in the High Court of Karnataka. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition holding that Captain Kumar did not possess experience as provided
in the Schedule to the Regulations and was, therefore, ineligible to be
appointed as Deputy Conservator. The judgment of learned Single Judge was,
however, reversed in appeal by impugned judgment dated 19th August, 1997.
Union of India - respondent no. I and New Mangalore Port Trust, respondent F
no.2, have all through supported the appointment of Captain Kumar. The
principal question is whether Captain Kumar possesses the essential experi-
ence as stipulated in the Regttlations. The experience required for the post is
as follows :
G
"10 years experience as Master of foreign going ship or in pilotage
and dredging in a Major Port Trust."

Captain Kumar had the experience of 6 years as a Master and 9 years
as a Pilot. The appellant had, at the relevant time, an experience of 2 years
as Master and 11 years as a Pilot. H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A Can experience as a Master and Pilot be clubbed together for possess-
ing 10 years experience is the question for consideration? Learned Single
Judge took the view that clubbing of experience is not permissible and ·on
that view, quashed the appointment of Captain Kumar made by the Port
Trust. The Division Bench, on the other hand, held that the experience gained
B either as a Master or as a Pilot or both together could be taken into
consideration and, therefore, no fault could be found with such an interpre-
tation placed by the Select Committee. H further held that when two views
are possible, the one which the administrative authority has taken, should not
be interfered with and that the view taken by Selection Committee was
possible or even probable view. Thus, the appointment of Captain Kumar was
c upheld.

In the hierarchy of posts, the Deputy Conservator is higher than
'Harbour Master' which post is higher than that of a 'Pilot'. These three posts,
under The New Mangalore Port (Authorisation of Powers) Regulations, 1980
D are defined as under :-

"'Deputy Conservator' means the Deputy Conservator of the port and
the officer to whom the direction and management of pilotage are
vested;

E 'Harbour Master' means the officer appointed as such by the Board
to perform such duties as may, from time to time be assigned to him
by the Deputy Conservator;

'Pilot' means a person lawfully appointed and licensed as such by the
Board subject to the authorisation of the Central Government, to pilot
F in the Port any vessel as directed by the Deputy Conservator or
Harbour Master;"

The terms 'foreign-going ship' and 'Master' are defined in Section
3(13) and Section 3(22) of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 as under :-
G '"foreign-going ship' means a ship, not being a home-trade ship,
employed in trading between any port or place in India and any other
port or place or between ports or places, outside India;

'Master' includes any person (except a pilot or harbour master)
H having command or charge of a ship;"
CAPT. KARAN VASWANI v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 749
In Section 2(n) of The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the term 'master' A
r has been defined as under :-

"'Master', in relation to any vessel or any aircraft making use of any
port, means any person having for the time being the charge or control
of such vessel or such aircraft, as the case may be, except a pilot,
harbour master, assistant harbour master, dock master or berthing B
master of the port;"

We have no difficulty in accepting the contention of Mr. Rao, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant, that the post of 'Master' does not
include in its ambit the post of 'Pilot'. However, that by itself does not show
that the experience as a master of foreign-going ship cannot be clubbed with
c
the experience of a pilot to satisfy the requirement of experience provided in
the Regulations for the post of Deputy Conservator. According to The New
Mangalore Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion)
Regulations, 1980 as amended in 1989, for the post of Pilot as also for the post
of Harbour Master, it is essential to hold a certificate of competency as master D
of foreign-going ship issued by the Ministry of Shipping and Transport,
Government of India or by Board of Trade, UK or any other Commonwealth
country whose certificate of competency has commonwealth validity. For the
post of Pilot it is also essential to have three years experience as Chief Officer
or as a master of foreign-going ship whereas for the post of Harbour Master,
E
it is essential to possess five years experience as a pilot after attaining
proficiency in handling all types of ships with unrestricted tonnage. For the
post of Deputy Conservator, when filled by promotion/transfer/deputation,
officer is required to hold analogous post or with three years regular service
in the lower post equivalent to or above Harbour Master. 'Analogous posts'
under Regulation 3(i) of 1991 Regulations means a post of which the duties F
and level of responsibilities and/or the pay ranges are comparable to thoSe of
the post to which selection is to be made .
•The post of Deputy Conservator is required to have variety of experi-
ence. The direction and management of pilotage is vested in Deputy Conser-
vator. The duties to be performed by Harbour Master are assigned by him. The
G
Deputy Conservator is thus required to have a varied experience. The
Regulations stipulate 10 years' experience as Master or in pilotage or dredging
in a Major Port Trust. There is no prohibition in the regulations in clubbing
of the two experiences. The regulation reproduced above has equated the two
experiences. If the contention of the appellant is acc.epted, it will mean that H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A despite having vast experience but less than IO years as Master of foreign-
going ship and having equally vast experience as a pilot, a person would still
be ineligible for being considered for the post of Deputy Conservator. We are
unable to read any such intention in the regulations.

It may further be noticed that the stand of the Central Government is
B that it has consistently implemented the Re&tllation taking into consideration
the total experience notwithstanding that it is partly as a master of foreign-
going ship and partly in pilotage. It has always considered the ~xperience
clubbed together. This is stated to being consistently
.
followed in r~cruitment
\ .
of heads of department in other major ports including Madras and Cochin
C where Deputy Conservator was recruited by direct recruitment method in
1994. It has also been stated that the nature and functions of a Master and
a Pilot are similar. The Government states that the Master of a ship is
i1 autl1orised to perform the acts ordinarily necessary for the safe and proper
execution of the voyage. A pilot primarily navigates within the harbour. As
D already stated, both have to possess certificate of competency as Master of
foreign-going ship. The Pilot has specialised local knowledge whereas
Master of a ship entering in a port, is not expected to have the detailed
information about the local signals, l~ghts, depth of harbour etc. The Union
of India has throughout understood and implemented the stipulation about
experience, to mean the total experience, either as a Pilot or as a Master and
E
clubbing the two, has considered the case of recruitment in the past as well.
It cannot be said that the interpretation placed by the respondents is not
reasonable or is impermissible.

Another contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that Captain
F Kumar was guilty of suppression of material information which, if known,
wm1ld have deba1red him from being appointed to the post in question. The
Division Bench of the High Court has rightly rejected the said contention.
Further we find no reason to reject the stand taken of the Port Trust that.iluring
interview, Captain Kumar was specifically asked regarding the sinking inci-
dent, which according to the appellant was suppressed. Moreover, on the
G representation of the appellant, tllis aspect was examined by the Ministry of
Surface Transport and it did not find any merit in the assertion of the appellant

H
about the suppression of material information. We do not find any infirmity
in the approach of the Ministry. Further, admittedly for the post of Deputy
Conservator, neither attestation form is required to be filled nor any such form
was filled which is unlike the requirement to be complied at the time of
-
CAPT. KARAN VASWANI v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 751
\

appointment as a pilot. We are not suggesting that on this account, a person A
can suppress any material information. We find no substance in this contention
as well.

For the reasons aforesaid, we find no infirrnity in the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. The
parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. B

K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.