Indian Airlines Ltd. vs S. Gopalakrishnan

K. Sampath, J.—By consent of both Counsel the main Writ Appeal itself was taken up for consideration.

The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge granting the prayer of the Respondent herein directing the Appellants to act upon the Respondent''s selection for purpose of appointment to the post of Junior Operator in the first Appellant Airlines.

The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are us under:

The first Appellant issued an employment notice on 8-8-1997 calling for applications for the post of Junior Operator for its Southern Region. This notification provided the eligibility criteria for considering the applications. The Respondent claiming that he possessed the requisite qualifications applied for the post. By letter dated 16-2-1998 the second Appellant provisionally accepted the application of the Respondent and directed him to appear for a trade test/interview on 18-3-1998. On the said date the Respondent attended the driving test as also the interview. There was a subsequent intimation from the second Appellant informing the Respondent that he had been selected and he was being posted to Chennai. He was directed to appear before the third Appellant along with his original certificates. He was also required to undergo medical examination. He also filled up the necessary forms, besides producing attested copies of certificates as directed. The Respondent was advised by Dealing Assistant that he would be receiving a communication in respect of medical examination. The Respondent did not receive any such intimation. He also learnt that several others, who had been selected and placed below the Respondent, had already been given appointment letters after being subjected to medical examination. The Respondent being eligible in all respects and having been also selected for the post of Junior Operator, there was violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution by denial of posting. The action of the Appellants was discriminatory and contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

In the counter filed on behalf of the Appellants, while conceding the factual details upto the stage of the provisional selection of the Respondent, it was stated that on a verification of the certificates, it was found that the Respondent was not eligible to be appointed and therefore the letter of appointment and posting had not been issued. There was no discrimination nor was the refusal arbitrary and no right had accrued to the Respondent for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The learned single Judge considered the matter elaborately and held that the Respondent possessed the necessary qualifications for being appointed as Junior Operator and the Appellant''s refusal to appoint the Respondent and give a posting was discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore he was entitled to the prayer.

Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submitted that the learned single Judge had misconstrued the employment notification dated 8-8-1997 while holding that the Respondent was qualified. According to the learned Counsel, the notification clearly stated that experience would be computed only after the date of acquiring the necessary qualification and the Respondent did not have such experience of two years as he got his Diploma only in April, 1996. In so doing, according to the learned Counsel, the learned single Judge varied the qualifications prescribed by the Appellants and usurped the functions of the Appellants Management. The learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 4279/99 relating to the very same employment notification where two years experience had been construed to mean experience before the notification. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 168 and M.V. Nair v. Union of India 24 ATC 236.

Mr. V. Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, submitted that the Respondent possessed the necessary qualifications required for the post and that the learned single Judge has construed the provisions correctly and granted the prayer of the Respondent and no exception could be taken to the same. A reading of the notification issued by the first Appellant clearly shows that for appointment as Junior Operator, the person should have two years experience in equipment operating or driving and possess current heavy vehicles driving licence. No doubt, in the general information and instruction it is stated that experience will be computed after the date of acquiring the necessary qualification. However, the notification does not say that the two years driving experience should be with reference to heavy vehicles driving and it should have been acquired after obtaining the Diploma in Engineering. What all the notification says is that the Appellant should be possessed of experience for two years in driving and the licence for heavy vehicle should be current. It is not disputed that the Respondent is an I.T.I. Certificate Holder since 1987 and possesses a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, which was secured during April, 1996 and on 9-1-1987 he was granted a licence to drive light motor vehicle and subsequently, on 29-6-1994 an endorsement had been made permitting him to drive heavy, motor vehicles as well. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the applicant should possess two years experience in heavy vehicles driving after his acquiring the Diploma in Mechanical Electrical/Automobile Engineering is not spelt out from the notification relating to qualifications and experience requirements.

As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, a simple reading of the employment notification shows that the candidate must possess the necessary educational qualification besides two years driving experience and current heavy vehicles licence and if the Appellants insisted for experience of two years in driving of heavy vehicles after acquiring the necessary qualifications, it should have been specifically stated in the employment notification. Admittedly, the Respondent possessed the necessary educational qualifications. The learned single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the Respondent was entitled to the relief prayed for. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. In the view we are taking, it is not necessary to refer to the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. We are also not in agreement with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this regard.

The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Consequently, the stay petition W.M.P. No. 14937/99 is also dismissed.