BHAGWANDAS Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought direction against the respondents commanding them to appoint him to the post of Assistant Civil Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.2285-3396 against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate with retrospective effect, namely, the date on which the select panel was approved by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Airlines.

(2.) It is alleged that on 25.7.1981 an advertisement was issued by the Personnel Department of Indian Airlines inviting applications from serving employees for various posts, including one post of Assistant Civil Engineer in pay scale of Rs.2285-3395, which vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. Petitioner duly applied and through letter dated 11.2.1992 was called for written test, which was scheduled to be held on 23.2.1992. Having successfully qualified the written test, through letter dated 5.6.1992 he was called for interview scheduled to be held on 30.6.1992. As a result of the written test and oral interview he was duly selected and on 2.12.1992 the proceedings of the Selection Board were duly approved by the competent authority, namely, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

(3.) Writ petition was instituted on 24.11.1993 alleging that though the petitioner had been duly selected and proceedings of duly constituted Board were duly approved by the Chairman, the respondent denied appointment to the petitioner against the said post. It is alleged that a complaint was got fabricated against the petitioner, which was received by the Department on 11.10.1993 in which it was stated that the petitioner had committed an irregularity by selling the flat, which had been purchased by him with the loan advanced to him by the department and, thus, there has been mis-utilisation of the amount of loan. The petitioner's case is that neither on the date of issuance of advertisement for the post in question, nor on the dates when selection was made and panel was approved by the competent authority, any complaint was pending. On approval of the panel he was entitled to be appointed to the post in question, which appointment had been denied to him by the respondents illegally and arbitrarily. It is also the petitioner's case that since no complaint was pending on the aforementioned relevant dates direction, as prayed, deserves to be issued against the respondents to appoint him with retrospective effect of selection/approval of the panel.