INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATIONversusCAPT. K.C. SHUKLA AND ORS.

                INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION                                   A
                               v.
                  CAPT. K.C. SHUKLA AND ORS.

                         SEPTEMBER 23, 1992

         (S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.]                            B

     Indian Airlines Promotion & Recruitment Rules: Rule 8 & IO:

      Service La11>-Selection post-Deputy Operations Manager-Selection
based on interview and Annual Confidential Reports-Validity of-Scope and C
power of Court to evaluate fitness of a candidate-Court cannot assume the
role of Selection Commiuee.

     Air Corporations, 1953: Section 34.

     Central Governments' letter of advisory nature-Cannot amend Rules. D

       Under the. Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the appellant-Cor·
poration the post of Deputy Operations Manager was to be filled by
selection and promotion. The method of evaluation to be adopted by the
Selection Committee was 50% on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports
and 50% on the basis of Interview (percentage of marks later reduced to       E
40%). However, by a letter issued in 1987 the Managing Director of the
appellant-Corporation advised that while making the selection seniority
should be adhered to.

       The first respondent filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court
claiming promotion to the post. of Deputy Operations Manager from the         F
date other respondents were promoted. The High Court allowed the relief
prayed for holding that (i) the selection based on Annual Confidential
Reports and Interview was contrary to rules; (ii) the Selection Committee
was not validly constituted. The High Court was also ol" the view 'that the
letter of Managing Director issued In 1987 was a dil"ection by the Central    G
Government. The High Court's ~rder was challenged in this Court.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court,

      HELD: 1. Adjusting equities in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
in one thing but assuming the role of Selection Committee is another. The     H
                                   811
    812                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP.! S.C.R.

A   Court cannot substitute its opinion and devise Its own method of evaluat·
    Ing fitness of a candidate for a particular post. Not that it Is powerless to
    do so and in a case where after removing the illegal part it is found that
    the officer was not promoted or selected contrary to law it can issue
    necessary direction. But it would be going tM far If the Court Itself
B   evaluates fitness or otherwise of a candidate, as in this case. (814 A·CJ

          2. The alternative relief granted by the High Court by reducing the
    Interview percentage and then working out proportionally the marks ob-
    tained by respondent on Annual Confidential Report evaluation and Inter·
    view and directing to promote him as by this method be would secure the
c   minimum required cannot be· accepted as proper exercise or jurisdiction
    Wider Article 226. The High Court was also not justified in Its finding that
    the Committee was illegally constituted. [813·H, 814-A, 816-B]

            3. As regards the proportion between written test and interview or
    evaluation on confidential entries and personality test distinction appears
D   to have been drawn In Interview held for competitive examinations or
    admission In educational Institutions and selection for higher posts. Elfort
    bas been made to eUmlnate scope of arbitrariness in the former by nar-
    rowing down the proportion as various factors are likely to creep in. But
    Sllllle standard cannot be applied for higher selection. In respondent's case
E   hls personality was judged by a committee constituted under the mies for
    purposes of higher promotional post. Therefore, It would be unsafe to
    strike down the rules as arbitrary when the evaluation was job oriented.
    From the record it appears the Committee was neither gullty of arbltrarl·
    ness nor It violated any rnle or regulation In allotting the marks which of
F   course were very low In Interview. (814 D·H]

          Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (191111 4 S.C.C. 159, relied on.

        Ajay Basia&: Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ori., (1981) 1 S.C.C.
  722; Ashok Kumar Yadav &: Ors, etc. v. State of Hruyana & Ors. etc, (1985)
G 4 S.C.C; 417 and State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin & Ors., (1987] Supp; S.C.C.
  401, referred to.

         4. Rules cannot be taken to be BD1ended by the leiter of the Central
    Government which was Issued as an advice that wblle making selection to
    the post of Deputy Operations Manager normally seniority should be
H   adhered to. (815 F·H, 816-AJ
            INDIAN AIRLINES. v. CAPT. SHUKLA (SAHA!, J.]               813

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3929 of A
1992.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.1991 of the Delhi High
Court in C.W.P. No. 2159 of 1990.

      G. Ramaswami, Attorney General, Arun Jaitley and Ms. Nina Gupta        B
for the Appellant.

        SL. Hans and Ms. Sangeeta Chaudhary for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                             c
        R.M. SAHAI, J. Indian Airlines is aggrieved by the order of the Delhi
High Court passed in exercise of its writ jurisdiction quashing the order
dated 10th April 1990, promoting respondent nos. 2 to 25 as illegal and in
the alternative directing the Corporation to promote the appellant to the
~t of Dy. Operations Manager with effect from the date the other D
respondents were promoted and grant all consequential benefits. Reason
for such directions were both legal and factual. It was found that the post
 of Dy. Operations Manager was mere redesignation of the earlier post of
Chief Pilot therefore the· respondent was entitled to claim promotion on
his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and entire procedure of selec· E
lions on ACR and interview was contrary to rules. Selection was found to
be vitiated as the committee was not constituted in accordance with rules
 and regulations. Method of evaluation based 50% on ACR and 50% on
 interview, when the field of eligibility comprised of officers immediately
below, was held to be arbitrary as such wide gap between ACR evaluation
·and personality test was liable to reduce entire selection process to a farce F
 leaving ample scope for pick and choose. On facts it was found that since
 there was over-writing in marks awarded to some of the candidates the
 board did not appear to have acted fairly. It was further found that an
 officer who secured high percentage on ACR could not be imagined to
 have secured so low marks in personality test as was indicated to have been G
 awarded to the respondent in the test sheet.

      Whether the decision of the High Court is well founded on various
aspects shall be examined presently but the alternative relief granted by the
High Court probably in an anxiety to be fair and just to those others who
had been selected by reducing th~ interview percentage to 12.5% then H
    814                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A working out proportionally the marks obtained by respondent on ACR
    evaluation and interview and directing to promote him as by this method
    he would secure the minimum required cannot be accepted as proper
    exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. Adjusting equities in exercise of
    extraordinary jurisdiction in one thing but assuming the role of selection
    committee is another. The Court cannot substitute its opinion and devise
B   its own method of evaluating fitness of a candidate for a particular post.
    Not that it is powerless to do so and in a case where after removing the
    illegal part It is found that the officer was not r~omoted or selected
    contrary to law it can issue necessary direction; For instance a candidate
    denied selection because of certain entries in his character roll which either
C   could not be taken into account or had been illegally considered beqmse
    they had been expunged the Court would be within jurisdiction to issue
    necessary direction. But it would be going too far if the Court itself
    evaluates fitness otherwise of a candidate, as in this case.

D          Law on the proportion between written test and interview or evalua-
    tion on confidential entries and personality test have been laid down in
    series of decisions by this Court commencing from Ajay Hasia & Ors. v.
    Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., (1981] 1 SCC 722,; Lila Dhar v. State of
    Rajasthan & Ors., [1981) 4 SCC 159;Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. etc. v. State
    of Haryana & Vrs. etc., (1985) 4 SCC 417 and State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin &
E   Ors., (1987] supp. sec 401. Distinction appears to have been drawn in
    interview held for competitive examinations or admission in educational
    institutions and selection for higher posts. Effort has been made to
    eliminate scope of arbitrariness in the former by narrowing down the
    proportion as various factors are likely to creep in. But same standard
p   cannot be applied for higher selections. Lila Dhar's case brings it out fully.
    In respondent's case the personality of the respondent was being judged
    by a committee constituted under the rules for purposes of higher promo-
    tional posts and, therefore, it was governed by the ratio laid down in Lila
    Dhar's case and it would be unsafe to strike down the rules as arbitrary
    when the evaluation was job oriented. Marks to be allotted by the Com-
G   mittee were an professional ability and management capacity. Further the
    corporation has amended the rules and narrowed it down in 1991 by
    reducing the interview marks to 40% only. Moreover after eJ<llmining the
    record, which was examined by the High Court, as well, it appears the
    Committee was neither guilty of arbitrariness nor it violated any rule or
H   regulation in allotting the marks which of course were very low in interview.
           INDIAN AIRLINES. v. CAPT. SHUKIA [SAHA!, J.]                815

       Much has been made out by the High Court on the nature of post A
being selective or promotional. A pilot when selected is designated as First
Officer. His promotional hierarchy is Captain, Commander Pilot. Deputy
Operations Manager Operations Manager/Deputy Director of Operations
Director of Operations/Director of Training. Till 1970 the next higher post
after Commander Pilot was Chief Pilot. His duties were more or less the B
same as of Deputy Operations Manager except that the Deputy Manager
has to exercise more .administrative control on wider range. Categories 1
and 2 are admittedly categories of workmen and 3 to 6 are admittedly posts
in management categories with administrative functions. From the regula-
tions which have been framed and which were in operation prior to 1970
and after it, the post of Chief Pilot or Deputy Operations Manager were C
considered posts of the Officer's category. Method of seli:ction for such
post was by promotion but since 1970 in view of minutes recorded by the
Corporation it became both a selection and a promotion post. If the
regulations would have stood only like that probably it could be said to be
arbitrary. But that has been effectively controlled and curtailed by regula- D
tioilS framed from time to time. Result is that normally it is 'by selection
and the field of eligibility is confined to Commander Pilots. Whether a post
should be f.illed by promotion or by selection is a matter which is governed
by Promotion and Recruitment Rules. So long as the rules are not violative
either of the regulations or the Act or arbitrary the courts will have little E
jurisdiction to interfere with it. Since in this case promotion or selection to
the post of Deputy Operations Manager is governed by Rules they appear
to be valid and do not suffer from any infirmity. Nor it can be said that the
 Corporation in limiting the field of eligibility to Commander Pilots acted
contrary to any rules. The High Court did not dispute that when the post
of Chief Pilot Officer was redesignated and was placed in higher category F
it was provided that the posts shall be filled by selection and promotion.
 But from a letter issued in 1987 by the Managing Director that while
malcing selection to the post of Operation Manager it was advised that
 normally seniority should be adhered to it was of opinion that the letter
 was a directive by Central Govt. under Section 34 of the Act. Since G
 promotion to the post is governed by Recruitmen! and Promotion Rules
 which were amended by the Board and it was provided by rule 8 that 'The
 post of Deputy Operations Manager belongs to upper managerial cadre
 and, therefore, it was essential that it should be filled up by direct recruit-
 ment or promotion at the discretion of the Management' it cannot be taken H
    816                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A   to be amended by the letter of the Central Govt. which was issued as an
    advice due to greater margin in the marks for interview and evaluation on
    ACR. Further seniority was not ignored but while judging ability of various
    officers the method adopted was interview.

          Nor was the Higb Court justified in its finding that the Committee
B was illegally constituted as proviso to rule 10 empowers the General
    Manager to constitute a Board other than the one mentioned in rule 10.
    From the record it appears the power was exercised by the Director under
    the proviso and the exercise of power does not appear to be vitiated for
    any reason.
c         The High Court appears to have been persuaded more by the
    arbitrariness of the Interview Board, particularly by some over-writing in
    the marks which were awarded against some of the officers and drew an
    inference that probably it was not fair. We do not fmd any justification for
    the same after perusal of the record. Moreover so far respondent is
D   concerned average marks allotted by all the four members did not give an
    impression that either the marking was arbitrary or that they were biased
    against him.

           In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed
    by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. But there
E   shall be no order as to costs.

    T.N.A.                                                     Appeal allowed.