MANVIRSINGH MALKHAN SINGH 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 1978, 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. Upto 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 June 15, 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 If 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 June 10, 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 recruitment. 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.) THE petitioner, along with others who had been officiating as Assistant Aerodrome Officers on ad -hoc basis, was appointed as Assistant Aerodrome Officer on regular basis with effect from July 1, 1977 'in officiating capacity and until further orders'. Since the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Aerodrome Officer in September 1976 when the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and some of his colleagues were promoted in January 1977 consequent thereto, he, on August 20, 1977, made a representation to the Director General of Civil Aviation (respondent No. 2) against this exclusion from consideration. As he did not receive any reply to this representation and as he was not considered for promotion by the departmental promotion committee in February 1978, he pursued his earlier representation by telegram dated March 3, 1978 and further representation on March 4, 1978. By memorandum dated March 13, 1978 he was informed that according to government orders, service rendered on ad hoc basis does not count either for seniority in the grade or for promotion to the next higher grade. For this view, he was referred to the office memorandum dated October 29, 1975 issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms, Government of India.