CAPT B K KUKREJA Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the promotion of Respondents 2 to 35 from Commander Grade to the Grade of Deputy Operations Manager. According to the petitioner, he was considered alongwith others including respondents 2 to 35 in June 1994. The petitioner had not been promoted. According to the petitioner, his performance had been very good and having regard to the overall performance of the petitioner he should have been selected by the Selection Committee. But the members of the Selection Committee without complying the law acting on irrelevant considerations had selected the persons of their own choice and thereby the petitioner was deprived of his promotion. The petitioner was subsequently promoted in August 1994 and he became Deputy Operation Manager on 05.09.1994. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 to 35 belonged to his batch and once the petitioner was promoted he should have been given his due seniority in the promotion post and respondents 2 to 35 are far junior to him in the lower grade. Though the petitioner has not directly challenged the promotion of Respondents 2 to 35 but what he wants is that he must be deemed to have been promoted along with respondents 2 to 35 on the basis of the Selection held in June 1994.

(2.) The petitioner has stated that when he made a representation to the higher authority he was informed that in the selection held in August 1994 he was found suitable. According to the petitioner there was no selection in August 1994. Respondent No.1 had promoted the petitioner only on the basis of assessment made in the selection held in June 1994 but deliberately he was given an order of promotion only in August 1994 to give the benefit to Respondents 2 to 35.

(3.) The first respondent in the counter filed has explained the position stating that in the selection held in June 1994 the case of the petitioner was considered and he was not selehcted. Subsequently, in August 1994 taking a policy decision substantial number of Commaers were promoted as Deputy Operation Manager and in that process the petitioner was promoted. The first respondent denied the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was found suitable in the selection held in June 1994 but purposely the order of promotion issued in August 1994. Mr. Y.P. Narula, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the letter dated 27/10/1994 would clearly show that there was a selection in August 1994 and the first respondent had not produced any material to show that there was any selection. While as a matter of fact, there was no selection in August 1994 and this only to explain what has been stated in the letter dated 27/10/1994, the respondent No.1 had come out with the new theory of promotion on the basis of a policy decision. Mr. Narula, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the selection committee had selected the persons whose track record had not at all been satisfactory and while making the decision the members of the selection committee had acted irrationally and that had resulted in the petitioner being denied his promotion in June 1994.