B MUNJAL Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged by filing the writ petition the appointments of respondents 2 and 3 as an officer w.e.f. 28.8.1986 and the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 w.e.f. 1.10.1986, besides challenging the fixing of seniority vis-a-vis the petitioners who are appointed as Computer Officers on 7.4.1988 along with the 4th respondent Mrs. On Dua and at hird party Mr.U.S.Datta. The petitioners have come for ward with a case that while appointing respondents 2,3,5 and 6 in the year 1986 the claims of the petitioners were not given due consideration and while appointing the petitioners on 7.4.1988 the first respondent had stated that the inter se seniority would be intimated in due course. The claim of the petitioners is that they ought to have been appointed in 1986 and while fixing their inter se seniority the petitioners should have placed above respondents 2 and 3, and respondents 5 and 6. On 24.4.1990 the petitioners made representation to the respondent No, 1. On 3.12.1990 a reply was sent by first respondent that the matter was under consideration- On 11.4.1991 order was passed by the first respondent rejecting the representation and the same is as under: "This has reference to the joint representation dated 18th December, 1990 you have made alongwith others namely S/Shri S.K. Gupta and K.S. Sandhu, Computer Operations Officers, EDP Deptt. Hqrs. to the Director of Personnel, IA, Hqrs. New Delhi. Your representation has been examined and the position is as under: You alongwith other representation is as were appointed as Computer Operations Officer in the year 1988. Although yourself and others, were found suitable for promotion under Selection Quota, yet the appointments made were against. Direct Recruitment and Promotion vacancies, Shri K.P. Rao and Shri S.S. Chadhury were appointed r.s Computer Operations Officers in 1986 against Direct Recruitment vacancies. Therefore, you and others cannot claim seniority over S/Shri Rao and Choudhury. The management has been considerate to you and other representationists while making your and their appointment in l988 as Computer Operations Officers though vacancies did not exist under Selection Quota. Your and others claim of snior ity over S/Shri Rao and Choudhury cannot be acceded to. You and other representationists therefore, have no cause of any grievance."

(2.) On 21.12.1991 the writ petition was presented in this Court.

(3.) The case of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition is: "That the said successful candidates after Phase II training and test were subjected to Interview test alongwith candidates from open market on 6th Jan., 1986 and panel of about 15 internal and external candidates were prepared against the existing 13 vacancies. 307 The panel list is in the power and custody of respondent No. 1 but it is reliably learnt that the following candidates including the petitioners and respondents 5 & 6 were on the panel in order of seniority and merit: 1. Mr.M.R.Sahni 2. Mr.R.K.Shrimali 3. Mr.K.C.Soni 4. Mr. U.S. Datta 5. Mr. Sudhir Gupta (petitioner) 6. Mr. B. Munjal (petitioner) 7. Mr. Karnail Singh Sandhu 8. Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao (respondent No.5). 9. Mr. S.S.Chaudary (respondent No. 6) It is submitted that in accordance with Rule 9(e) of said Recruitment & Promotion Rules, in selecting candidates preference is to be given to internal candidates and in terms of I.A. Hqrs. letter No. HPDOI/XIIOO dated March 28, 1973 intemaln didates will be placed on top of the panel in order of seniority. True photo copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P4."