2009 (3) TMI 980 - SC - Indian Laws

Court validates cadre merger in EDP Department; promotions upheld. Recruitment rules deemed administrative.

The court upheld the validity of the merger of two cadres within the EDP Department, ruling that the appellant's delayed challenge did not invalidate the ... Whether the Recruitment & Promotion Rules are statutory in nature or mere administrative instructions? Whether the merger of the two cadres is valid? Whether the promotion of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 is not in accordance with law? Issues Involved:1. Validity of the merger of two cadres (hardware and software) within the EDP Department.2. Nature of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (statutory or administrative).3. Legality of the promotions of respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4.4. Allocation of marks in the selection process (50% for interview and 50% for ACR evaluation).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Merger of Two Cadres:The Indian Airlines Officers' Association requested the merger of the seniority of the hardware and software cadres. The Corporation decided to merge these divisions and maintain a common seniority list. The appellant contended that the merger was contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. However, the court noted that the appellant did not challenge the validity of the merger in her initial writ petition and only raised it in a rejoinder affidavit. The court found that the appellant was aware of the merger and had participated in related proceedings without objection. The court held that the merger was valid as it was based on an agreement between the Management and the Officers' Association, which did not contravene any statutory rules.2. Nature of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules:The court examined whether the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were statutory or merely administrative. The Rules were framed under the Indian Airlines Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1955, which are statutory. However, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules themselves were not notified in the Gazette and were not framed under any rule-making power. The court concluded that these Rules were administrative guidelines and not statutory in nature. Administrative rules are not legislation and can be modified without following a particular procedure, as long as they do not violate the Constitution or statutory provisions.3. Legality of the Promotions of Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4:The appellant argued that respondent no. 2 was not eligible for promotion due to his different cadre background. The court found that respondent no. 2 was senior to the appellant in terms of length of service and had been considered eligible based on the merged seniority list. The court upheld the promotion of respondent no. 2, noting that the appellant had not substantially challenged the merger of cadres as arbitrary or mala fide.Regarding respondent nos. 3 and 4, the court noted that the promotions were based on a rigorous selection process assessing comparative merit, as per Rules 19 to 22 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The appellant's suitability was considered, but she was found less suitable compared to respondent nos. 3 and 4, who had outstanding ratings. The court emphasized that it could not substitute its opinion for that of the Selection Board and found no reason to invalidate the promotions.4. Allocation of Marks in the Selection Process:The appellant challenged the allocation of 50% marks for the interview and 50% for the evaluation of annual confidential reports (ACRs). The High Court had relied on previous decisions, including R.S. Parti vs. Indian Airlines Corporation, which upheld a similar evaluation method for higher managerial posts. The court reiterated that such allocation was not arbitrary and was job-oriented, particularly for upper managerial posts. The court found no basis to strike down the selection process as unfair.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the merger of cadres was valid, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were administrative, and the promotions of respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4 were lawful. The selection process, including the allocation of marks, was upheld as appropriate for the managerial posts in question. The appellant's participation in the selection process without prior objection further weakened her case. The court appreciated the appellant's presentation but found no merit in her claims.