Cap. T. Ravinder Singh vs National Remote Sensing Agency and Others

M.H.S. Ansari, J.—The petitioner in the above writ petition has questioned the legality and validity of the appointment of the Respondents 2 and 3 as "Trainee Pilots" in Respondent No. 1 Organisation.

The petitioner is a Pilot by profession having a valid Commercial Pilot Licence (for short "CPL") with flying experience of more than 800 hours and also possessing a Pass Certificate of B-200 Aircraft Technical Examination. Respondent No. 1 by an Advertisement No. 10-95/96, dated 25-3-1996 published in INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER invited applications for the post of "TRAINEE PILOT" in the 1st respondent Organisation.

The petitioner submitted his application pursuant to the said advertisement and was called for interview. It is the contention of the petitioner that 11 candidates appeared for the interview and none were having the flying experience of around 500 hours as advertised and that Respondent No. 2 was allowed to appear in the interview without having valid CPL. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the action of Respondent No. 1 in calling the ineligible candidates for the interview is unlawful and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 2 was having only about 270 hours flying experience and respondent No. 3 is having 275 hours of flying experience and does not possess Pass Certificate in B-200 Technical Examination though Respondent No. 3 was holding valid CPL. On coming to know after considerable time that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been appointed, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 24-8-1996 through his Advocate and questioned the Respondent No. 1, how Respondent No. 2 had been appointed although he was not eligible to apply for the post. The respondent No. 1 by its letter dated 1-10-1996, stated that the selection for the post of Trainee Pilot was done in accordance with the rules and that the petitioner was not selected for the post basing on the performance in the interview held on 13-6-1996. The petitioner has assailed the said letter dated 1-10-1996 in the above Writ Petition and sought for a declaration that the appointment of the respondents 2 and 3 as Trainee Pilots is illegal and for a consequential direction to appoint the petitioner.

Returns have been filed on behalf of Respondents 1, 2 and 3.

In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, it is stated that in response to the advertisement 25 applications were received including the applications of the petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3. A screening Committee constituted for the purpose has gone through the applications and short-listed 18 candidates including the petitioner and the Respondents 2 and 3 to be called for interview. The interviews were held on 13-6-1996. The Selection Committee selected the personnel in the post of "Trainee Pilot" after taking into account their performance in the interview, professional-technical competence, their aptitude/suitability and the job requirements. The selection was made by the Selection Committee in the order of merit of the following personnel:

S/Shri

K. Chandra Sekhar - Respondent No. 2 in the above Writ Petition. 2. Arun Kumar A. Nair 3. Abdul Saleem - Respondent No. 3 in the above Writ Petition 4. Harjinder Pal Singh

The candidate listed at Sl. No. 2 above expressed his unwillingness and the next candidate in the order of merit - Respondent No. 3 was thereupon offered the said post. With regard to the allegation that the Respondent No. 2 was not having a valid CPL, it is stated in the Counter affidavit that Respondent No. 2 was having a CPL valid till 4-2-1996. Respondent No. 2 could not present the original CPL on the date of the interview for the reason that on his journey from New Delhi to Hyderabad on 21-1-1996, Respondent No. 2''s suit-case containing his CPL alongwith certain other documents was stolen. A complaint was lodged at Railway P.S., Nagpur, he applied for a duplicate licence on 17-4-1996 after receiving the final police investigation report. At the interview, Respondent No. 2 furnished relevant documents in proof of his statements as above and requested permission to be allowed to appear for the interview and the Committee was also apprised of the same and Respondent No. 2 was empanelled along with others. Respondent No. 2 produced the renewed and valid CPL immediately on his obtaining duplicate licence and renewal of the same and was allowed to join duty only thereafter. Respondent No. 2 filed his Counter and a Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the Counter filed by Respondent No. 1.

In the instant case, the post advertised was that of a "Trainee Pilot". The advertisement prescribing the qualifications reads as under;

"01. Trainee Pilots":

For flying Beechcraft Super King Air B-200 Aircraft:

Valid CPL Holders with around 500 hours of flying experience preferably in turbo engined aircraft. Pilots who have already passed the Technical Examination for B-200 Aircraft are preferable."

It is the contention of the petitioner that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have been appointed to the said post should not have been appointed as they are not possessing the required qualification as advertised. Insofar as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, the petitioner''s case is that the Respondent No. 2 was not having a valid Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL), i.e., on the date of the interview. As regards Respondent No. 3, it is contended by the petitioner that he does not have a Pass Certificate in the Technical Examination for B-200 Aircraft and that Respondents 2 and 3 do not have 500 hours flying experience.

The qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are that the applicants should possess valid CPL with around 500 hours of flying experience preferably in Turbo-Engined Aircraft. Pilots who have already passed Technical Examination for B-200 Aircraft are preferred. With regard to the hours of flying experience, it is stipulated that, it should be around 500 hours preferably in Turbo-engined Aircraft. The basic requirement therefore is possessing valid CPL. The flying experience of 500 hours in Turbo-engined Aircraft has been qualified by the word "preferably" meaning thereby that those with 500 hours flying experience in Turbo-Engined Aircraft would be given additional weightage. The advertisement further specifies that those who have already passed the Technical Examination for B-200 Aircraft are preferable.

When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification in the post and further stipulates that preference will be given for additional qualifications, the only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage will be given to the candidates possessing the specified additional qualifications. It cannot be construed to mean that such persons possessing specified additional qualifications over and above the minimum prescribed would automatically be entitled to selection nor can it be construed that those not possessing the specified additional qualifications though possessing basic qualification are rendered ineligible. Where advertisement mentions, preference would be given to candidates having specified, additional qualifications or higher qualification, it can only mean and imply that other things being equal, the candidates with specified additional or higher qualifications over and above the minimum prescribed will be preferred. The contention of Smt. C. Jayasree Sarathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that only those candidates who fulfilled the qualification i.e., of 500 flying hours (experience) alone should have been called for interview is in the circumstances not tenable. Accepting the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner would either mean that the selection has to be confined only to those candidates having additional or higher qualification over and above the basic prescribed qualifications OR the selection be made in two stages i.e., firstly candidates possessing the preferential additional qualifications and thereafter the candidates with minimum (basic) qualifications and that too if the candidates possessing preferential qualifications not being available. Such a process of selection is neither warranted nor appropriate. The Respondents 2 and 3 possess the minimum (basic) qualifications advertised and have been rightly found eligible for selection. The action of the Respondent No. 1 cannot therefore be said to be arbitrary.

It was next contended that the respondents could not relax the eligibility criteria prescribed viz., that of 500 flying hours. As already noticed above, the basic qualification prescribed for the post was valid CPL. The flying experience of 500 hours in Turbo-Engined Aircraft is preferential qualification and cannot be termed as basic or minimum qualification.

It was next contended that Respondent No. 2 did not have the valid CPL as on the date of interview and therefore should not have been allowed to participate in the interview. The said contention is equally untenable. Respondent No. 2 was having a valid Commercial Pilot Lincence (CPL). The said licence was neither revoked nor cancelled. It was lost during the journey from New Delhi to Hyderabad on 21-1-1996. A complaint in respect thereof was lodged with Police which was the requirement for obtaining a duplicate licence and a duplicate licence was obtained by Respondent No. 2 on 17-4-1996 after final police investigation report. The very fact that a duplicate licence was issued to the petitioner and the same was also subsequently renewed after due process would show that the Respondent No. 2 was having a valid CPL and was eligible. Commercial Pilot Licence could not be renewed on its period of expiry (4-2-1996) as it was lost during the journey. It is nobody''s case that Respondent No. 2 is not a qualified Commercial Pilot or that he never possessed a valid CPL. On the facts as revealed, it has to be held, on the loss of the licence, a duplicate was subsequently furnished and thereafter renewed till 8-7-1998. The said facts are sufficient to sustain the claim of Respondent No. 2 that he possessed valid CPL and was therefore eligible to be considered for the post advertised.

As regards the contention of the petitioner that Respondent No. 3 has not passed the B-200 Technical Examination, it must be straightaway noticed that the said qualification is yet another preferential qualification and not the basic or minimum qualification for the post.

The petitioner has a valid CPL with flying experience around 766 hours, but not in Turbo-Engined Aircraft and has passed Technical Examination in B-200 Aircraft. That by itself would not entitle him to be selected. The Selection Committee selected the personnel after taking into account their performance in the interview, professional/technical competence and the job requirements. The post advertised is that of "Trainee Pilots" and it would not be prudent or proper for this Court to interfere with the selection made or the decision arrived at in such matters by Experts who are well conversant and better equipped to assess the relative merits of the candidates. It is not the duty of this Court to sit in appeal over Selection. It has only to consider whether the selection process is vitiated by mala fides or based on extraneous considerations or contrary to the rules or is otherwise vitiated by taking into account irrelevant factors or failure to take into account relevant factors.

In the circumstances, it has to be held that there has been no violation of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement in the empanellment of Respondents 2 and 3 and subsequently selecting them for the said post. Respondents 2 and 3 possess the basic qualifications advertised and fulfill the eligibility criteria for selection to the post in question.

On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the interviews were held on 13-6-1996 and results were declared soon thereafter, the 2nd respondent reported for duty on 19-7-1996 and Respondent No. 3 reported for duty on 14-8-1996, whereas the Writ Petition was filed after considerable delay on 14-10-1996 by which time, the Respondent No. 1 had at considerable expense sent the appointees (Respondents 2 and 3) for Training and it was contended that it would be inequitable to interfere with the said selection when the petitioner has chosen to belatedly challenge the selection. In short, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that on account of delay in filing the above Writ Petition, the petitioner has disentitled himself to any relief and that it would be inequitable to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. In the view that I have taken in the matter, it is not necessary to consider the aforesaid contention on behalf of the respondents.

For the reasons aforestated, there are no merits in the above writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. But, in the circumstances without costs.