MANVIRSINGH, NAGPUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this writ petition, assails his exclusion from consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Aerodrome Officer in September 1976 and February 1678, when, according to him, he had become eligible for promotion to the said post.

(2.) In order to understand the grievance of the petitioner, we may take a brief survey of the hierarchy of posts in Civil Aviation Department. Up to 1968, Aerodrome Operators (Grade I) and Aerodrome Operators Grade I (Selection Grade) used to be promoted as Assistant Aerodrome Officers as there was no intermediate step. In July 1968, 48 posts of Aerodrome Assistants were created by abolition of 41 temporary posts of Aerodrome Officers Grade I (Selection Grade). Pending finalisation of the Recruitment Rules, it was proposed that 75 per cent posts of Aerodrome Assistants would be filled by promotion from the cadre of Aerodrome Operators Grade I (Selection Grade) on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and 25 per cent of the posts by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness subject to passing of qualifying examination from amongst the Aerodrome Officers, Grade I (Selection Grade) having 5 years' service in the grade. On 15-6-1969, rules called Civil Aviation Department (Class I and Class II Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules') for regulating the method of recruitment to Class I and Class II posts in Civil Aviation Department were made. Under these rules, posts of Assistant Aerodrome Officer was made selection post and could be filled in by promotion of Aerodrome Operator, Grade I (Selection Grade) with three years service in the grade fulfilling certain conditions. It may be pertinent to note at this stage that though the post of Aerodrome Assistant was proposed to be inserted between the post of Aerodrome Operator, Grade I (Selection Grade) and Assistant Aerodrome Officers, this position was not reflected in these Recruitment Rules probably because, by then recruitment rules for the post of Aerodrome Assistants had not been finalised. Under these rules, the post of Aerodrome Officer was also made selection post and could be filled in only by promotion of "Assistant Aerodrome Officers with three years service in the grade". It seems that consequent to the creation of the post of Aerodrome Assistant, the recruitment rules were amended with effect ". from 10-6-1977 by substituting the entry, at Serial No. 43 in the Schedule relating to the post of Assistant Aerodrome Officer.. By virtue of this amendment, 25 per. cent, of these posts. had to be filled in by promotion and 75 per cent by direct recruitrment. Under the amended rules "Aerodrome Assistants with three years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis ' were made eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Aerodrome Officer.

(3.) After undergoing the requisite training, the petitioner was appointed as Aerodrome Operator Grade I on 16-9-1959 and he was confirmed in this post in 1961. He passed the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Aerodrome Assistant and under order dated 20-6- 1970 he was promoted to officiate in that post. By subsequent order passed on 23-3-1973, the petitioner along with others was promoted to the post of Assistant Aerodrome Officer "on purely ad hoc basis". In this order it was made clear to the promotees that they were promoted purely on ad hoc basis with clear understanding that this promotion would not confer on them any sort of right and that as and when recruitment rules were finalised, meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee would be held and the Panel of Officers would be drawn up and regular appointments would be made on that basis. It was also stated that it was quite conceivable that some of the officers appointed on ad hoc basis may not figure in the panel or there may be rearrangement in their inter se seniority being selection post. He took charge on 19-5-1973.