GAYA PRASHAD Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to confirm the petitioner in the post of Assistant Manager (Flight Operations) and to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be restrained from reverting the petitioner to the post of Operations Superintendent.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Operations Superintendent at the Palam Airport, New Delhi, when his, case for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager was considered by the respondents. On 19/04/1994, an order was passed by the respondents promoting four officer, including the petitioner, to the post of Assistant Manager (Flight Operations). The said appointment was, however, made subject to the provisions of Service Regulation 9. It was also clearly stipulated In the said order that the confirmation of the petitioner would be subject to his (a) passing the Flight Despatch Course for which he would be given not more than two chances and (b) Obtaining RT Licence. It Is stated In the petition that on 13/12/1985, 12 persons were promoted by the respondents to the post of Assistant Manager without laying down any such condition of passing the above Flight Despatch Course which was made a condition in the case of the petitioner. It is also stated that the said persons were subsequently confirmed and that all the promotions and confirmation in the post of Assistant Manager have taken place without any of the persons having completed the said Course. It is also stated that the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) but, the case of the petitioner either for confirmation in the post of Assistant Manager (Flight Operations) or Tor promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) was not considered by the respondents and instead an intimation was sent to the petitioner on 15/12/1998 threatening the petitioner of his reversion to the substantive post of Operations Superintendent.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid condition incorporated in the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 19/04/1994 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as no such condition was attached to similarly situated twelve persons who were promoted by the respondents to the same post of Assistant Manager (Flight Operations) on 13/12/1985. In the light thereof, it was submitted that the imposition of the aforesaid condition was arbitrary and bad in law. It was also submitted that the petitioner, therefore, after he had completed the period of probation which was for a period of one year should have been confirmed in the post of Assistant Manager (Flight Operations) and thereafter promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) in due course, on/or before when persons Junior to him were promoted.