TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quested the Management to merge the hardware and software cadres and to prepare a common seniority list. A common seniority list dated 24.9.1990 had been drawn for the purpose of promotions. 4. Thereafter interviews were held on 15.10.1990 for the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems). The said post was to be filled from the merged seniority list of hardware and software cadres. The Management vide its letter dated 23.11.1990 informed the appellant and others that their candidatures were being considered for filling up the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems). Thereafter, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were selected for the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems). The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the promotion of respondent nos. 2 to 4 as the writ petition filed by her was dismissed and confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. 5. The High Court inter alia held that promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) is to be on the basis of merit and, therefore, found no merit in the submission of the appellant that her juniors (respondent nos. 3 & 4) could not have been promoted to the said post. That so far as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned judgment does not suffer from any errors requiring interference of this court. 8. Be it noted, the appellant did not make any challenge in the writ petition as regards the validity of the merger of two cadres. She, however, appears to have raised the dispute for the first time in her rejoinder affidavit filed in the High Court. There is no prayer to set aside the settlement arrived at between the Management and the Officers' Association of which she is also a member. It is not as if the appellant was not aware of the merger of two streams in the EDP Department and consequent preparation of a combined seniority list. The appellant was a party- respondent in writ petition No. 3647/93 in which the same issue as the one raised by the appellant had fallen for consideration and the High Court after an elaborate consideration found nothing wrong with the settlement and merger of the cadres. The Letters Patent Appeal no. 75/94 preferred against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge came to be dismissed because of the non-appearance of the appellant vide order dated 7.5.2001. 9. The main issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Recruitment & Promotion R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Corporation and for carrying out its functions; the regulations inter alia may provide for the terms and conditions of service of officers and other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing Director and officers of any other categories referred to in Section 44. The regulations made are also required to be placed before each House of Parliament. The Parliament is entitled to make modifications. 10. The Indian Airlines Corporation vide its Notification dated 6th April, 1955 in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Act (27 of 1953) with the previous approval of the Central Government notified the regulations which have come into force from 1st January, 1955. The Regulations are called the Indian Airlines Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1955. The Regulations deal with the conditions of service, recruitment, promotion, discipline, control and appeal, pay and allowances, leave and retirement benefits of (a) Flying Crew; (b) Aircraft Engineering and (c) other employees, which shall be respectively as in the following rules namely:- a) The Indian Airlines Corporation (Flying Crew) Service Rules; b) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect to Parliamentary approval stand on entirely different footing. The administrative rules are always considered and have repeatedly been held to be rules of administrative practice merely, not rules of law and not delegated legislation and they have no statutory force. Mere description of such rules of administrative practice as "rules" does not make them to be statutory rules. Such administrative rules can be modified, amended or consolidated by the authorities without following any particular procedure. There are no legal restrictions to do so as long as they do not offend the provisions of the Constitution or statutes or statutory rules as the case may be. 13. In the present case the agreement/settlement arrived at between the Management and its Officers' Association has the effect of protanto amending the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The Rules and the agreement/settlement are complimentary to each other and have to be read together. 14. The decisions, in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi [ AIR 1975 SC 1331], B.K. Srinivasan Versus State of Karnataka [ AIR 1987 SC 1059] and Inder Pradash Gupta Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 786]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hardware cadres into one cadre. Be it noted, the appellant did not question the merger of cadres in the writ petition filed by her except contending the decision of the authorities of merger of two cadres into one was in violation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. No doubt an attempt was made by the appellant to contend before us that the merger of the two cadres into one is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This belated attempt on the part of the appellant cannot be countenanced and we cannot entertain any such plea at this stage without there being any pleadings in that regard in the writ petition filed in the High Court. 18. The appellant herself relied on number of recruitments and promotion guidelines issued from time to time without questioning and challenging the same. The agreement between the Corporation and its Officers' Association including the promotion of 2nd respondent as noted herein above was subject matter of the writ petition filed by Joydev Chakraborthy in which the appellant was arrayed as respondent. The High Court upheld the promotion of the 2nd respondent as Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) based on the agreement be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the exclusive jurisdiction of the employer, subject to limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution. "There is no right in any employee to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to existing service." (See: P.U. Joshi Vs. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632]. The High Court came to the right conclusion that the promotion of the respondent no. 2 as Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) is not vitiated for any reason whatsoever requiring interference. 20. Now we shall consider the question whether promotion of respondent no. 3 and 4 was valid? The selection of respondent no. 3 and 4 by a duly constituted Selection Committee was made on the basis of assessment of comparative merit, as per Rules 19 to 22 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Rules 19 to 22 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules are as follows: "19. The recommendations of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l be limited to the number of posts declared as such on the cadre according to the sanctioned strength from time to time. Rule 22 is specific in its terms. It says, in case of `selection grade posts', the selection is a `rigorous selection on merit'. 22. It is not the case of the appellant that her case was not at all considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems). It is clear from the record that the claim of the appellant for promotion was duly considered along with other eligible candidates including respondent nos. 3 and 4 who were ultimately found eligible and suitable for promotion. The Selection Board having assessed the ratings of each of the previous three years' annual performance appraisals and performance of the appellant in the interview found her not suitable for promotion. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 had outstanding ratings in their annual performance appraisals and were found suitable by the Selection Board. We cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the Selection Board and substitute our own opinion for that of the Board. In the result, we find the decision to select and appoint respondent nos. 3 and 4 is not viti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rajasthan; Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin. 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 cannot be applied for higher selections. Lila Dhar 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 promotional posts and, therefore, it was governed by the ratio laid down in Lila Dhar 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 Committee were on professional ability and management capacity." This authoritative pronouncement of this Court, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy raised by the appellant. It is not necessary to dilate any further on the subject. 26. Yet another aspect of the matter: That the appellant admittedly had participated in the si....