NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST Vs. CAPTAIN KARAN VASWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of an order made by the learned single judge in a writ petition by which the new mangalore port trust ('port trust' for short) sought to fill up the post of deputy conservator for port trust by direct recruitment. The recruitment to the various posts including that of the said deputy conservator is governed by the Provisions of the new mangalore port trust (recruitment of heads of departments) regulations, 1991. The point principally canvassed before the learned single judge was that the selected candidate did not possess the essential experience of 10 years as master of foreign going ship or in flotage and dredging in a major port trust. The learned single judge took the view that the experience of master of foreign going ship or in piloting cannot be read cumulatively to find out the extent of experience. He felt that the experience should be as a master of foreign going ship for 10 years or in the alternative, experience in piloting or dredging for a period of 10 years in a major port trust. On that basis, he allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointment made by the port trust. Hence, these appeals by the port trust, the union government and the selected candidate.

(2.) ). . ON behalf of the appellants, it is submitted that the relevant rule requires experience either as master of foreign going ship or in piloting or dredging in a major port trust and the two kinds of experience are alternative to one another and that is clear by the use of the expression 'or' between those two phrases. However, qualitatively there is no difference between the qualification for a master of foreign going ship or in piloting or dredging. It is submitted that the two phrases should be read synonymously and if so done, cumulative experience of 10 years either as master of foreign going ship or in piloting would be sufficient. On behalf of the respondents, relying upon the decision in rex v oakes, nasiruddin v state transport appellate tribunal and paras ram v State of haryana , it is contended that the distinction between the conjunction 'and' or 'or' is well known and the expressions 'and' or 'or' could be replaced only in particular circumstance as pointed out in the aforesaid decisions and when the connecting terms are not synonymous, it is submitted that it is not open to the authorities to read them together to find out the extent of experience possessed by the selected candidate.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the 1st respondent also submitted that there are certain other aspects in the matter such as non-disclosure of relevant information by the selected candidate, and the committee' which was constituted to select the candidate did not consist of persons who are fully qualified to do so and did not conform to the relevant regulation and therefore, the selection is bad on the face of it.