Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. Vs. S. Gopalakrishnan
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7310-7311 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18043-18044/99)
With
C.A. Nos. 7312 & 7313/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2254/ 2000 & SLP(C) No.2826/2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.99 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1722 and C.M.P. No. 14937 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18043-18044/99)
With
C.A. Nos. 7312 & 7313/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2254/ 2000 & SLP(C) No.2826/2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.99 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1722 and C.M.P. No. 14937 of 1999)
Petitioner: Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors.
Respondent: S. Gopalakrishnan
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7310-7311 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18043-18044/99)
With
C.A. Nos. 7312 & 7313/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2254/ 2000 & SLP(C) No.2826/2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.99 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1722 and C.M.P. No. 14937 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18043-18044/99)
With
C.A. Nos. 7312 & 7313/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2254/ 2000 & SLP(C) No.2826/2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.99 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1722 and C.M.P. No. 14937 of 1999)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 12, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K. Sukumar-an, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vineet Kumar, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Arpita Sharma, Mr. Uday Gupta, Mr. V. Prakash, Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Mr. S. Muralidhar, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Mr. Jayanth Muthraj, Mr. N.R. Shonker, Mr. Rahul Ravindran, Advocates with them for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 14 – Appointment – Junior Operator – Qualification – Two years’ experience after acquiring necessary qualification – ITI certificate in 1994, diploma in 1996 – Licence granted in Jan. 1987 – Endorsed for heavy vehicle in June 1996. Held that on 8.8.97 he did not possess requisite experience after acquiring necessary qualification. Hence, he could not be ap-pointed.
Held:
When in addition to qualification, experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualification and not before obtaining such qualifica-tion. In the case of the respondent, he obtained the ITI cer-tificate in the year 1994 and, therefore, did not possess five years of experience as required under the relevant rule. If his qualification as a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering is taken note of, he has not completed three years of experience as he got the same in April, 1996 and on relevant date he did not possess such qualification. When this requirement was made very clear that he should have experience only after acquiring the qualification, the view taken by the High Court to the contrary either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench, does not stand to reason. (Para 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Gurdial Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (JT 1995 (3) SC 87) (Para 4)
2. Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., (JT 1995 (3) SC 87) (Para 4)
3. N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (JT 1991 (5) SC 354) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant no.1 called for applications by notice dated 8.8.1997 for the post of Junior Operator for its Southern Region. In the said notice, the requisite qualification for appointment as a Junior Operator is that the candidate should have two years’ experience in equipment operating or driving and possess current heavy vehicles driving licence. It is also stated therein that the experience would be computed after the date of acquiring the necessary qualification. The respondent, who made an application for the said post, possesses an ITI certificate since 1994 and a diploma in Mechanical Engineering, which was obtained in April, 1996 and on 9.1.1987 he was granted a licence to drive light motor vehicle and subsequently the same was endorsed on 29.6.1994 to drive the heavy motor vehicles as well. On the ground that the respondent did not possess two years’ experience in heavy vehicle driving after his acquiring diploma in Mechanical/Elec-trical/Automobile Engineering, the respondent was not selected for the said post. Thereafter he filed a writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge held that the respond-ent possesses the necessary qualification for being appointed as a Junior Operator and held the action of appellant no.1 in not appointing him and giving him a posting, arbitrary and, there-fore, granted the relief. The writ appeal filed against the same also being unsuccessful, these appeals are preferred by special leave.
3. The short point for consideration is as to what is the job requirement of the Junior Operator and they are set out in the employment notice which reads as under :
“To drive, position, connect and operate Ground Support Equip-ments, including driving of transport vehicles. To carry out refuelling, oiling, air-charging, battery replacement and daily checks of Group Support Equipment/Vehicles. To perform inciden-tal paper work for recording, reporting incidents/accidents, operations, maintenance, etc. To assist Operators/Technicians in performance of their jobs. To tow aircraft and other Ground Support Equipment/dolleys, trolleys, etc. as per laid down pro-cedures. To keep current licences/permits required for opera-tion/driving of vehicles/equipments as laid down from time to time.”
Under the relevant rules, the qualification prescribed is as follows:
“2.1 S.S.C. or its equivalent with three years Government recog-nised diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Automobile Engineering and having two years’ experience in equipment operations or driving and possessing current heavy vehicle driving licence.
OR
2.2 S.S.C. with I.T.I. certificate or equivalent in Associated Trades of Mechanical/Electrical/Automobile courses and having five years’ experience in equipment operating or driving and possessing current heavy vehicle driving licence.”
4. The respondent has obtained the ITI certificate in June 1994 and he had about five years of experience after obtaining the cer-tificate and diploma in Mechanical Engineering was obtained in April 1996. In any event, it is clear that the experience ob-tained by him falls short of the requisite qualification. This Court in N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (JT 1991 (5) SC 354 = 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 584); Gurdial Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (1995 (3) 332) and Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., (JT 1995 (3) SC 87 = 2000 (1) SCC 128), has explained the necessity to obtain experience after obtaining the requisite qualification.
5. When in addition to qualification, experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualification and not before obtaining such qualifica-tion. In the case of the respondent, he obtained the ITI cer-tificate in the year 1994 and, therefore, did not possess five years of experience as required under the relevant rule. If his qualification as a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering is taken note of, he has not completed three years of experience as he got the same in April, 1996 and on relevant date he did not possess such qualification. Indeed in prescribing qualification and experience, it is also made clear in the general information instruction at Item No.6 that “experience will be computed after the date of acquiring the necessary qualifications”. Therefore, when this requirement was made very clear that he should have experience only after acquiring the qualification, the view taken by the High Court to the contrary either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench, does not stand to reason.
6. Therefore, we allow these appeals, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the re-spondent in the High Court. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant no.1 called for applications by notice dated 8.8.1997 for the post of Junior Operator for its Southern Region. In the said notice, the requisite qualification for appointment as a Junior Operator is that the candidate should have two years’ experience in equipment operating or driving and possess current heavy vehicles driving licence. It is also stated therein that the experience would be computed after the date of acquiring the necessary qualification. The respondent, who made an application for the said post, possesses an ITI certificate since 1994 and a diploma in Mechanical Engineering, which was obtained in April, 1996 and on 9.1.1987 he was granted a licence to drive light motor vehicle and subsequently the same was endorsed on 29.6.1994 to drive the heavy motor vehicles as well. On the ground that the respondent did not possess two years’ experience in heavy vehicle driving after his acquiring diploma in Mechanical/Elec-trical/Automobile Engineering, the respondent was not selected for the said post. Thereafter he filed a writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge held that the respond-ent possesses the necessary qualification for being appointed as a Junior Operator and held the action of appellant no.1 in not appointing him and giving him a posting, arbitrary and, there-fore, granted the relief. The writ appeal filed against the same also being unsuccessful, these appeals are preferred by special leave.
3. The short point for consideration is as to what is the job requirement of the Junior Operator and they are set out in the employment notice which reads as under :
“To drive, position, connect and operate Ground Support Equip-ments, including driving of transport vehicles. To carry out refuelling, oiling, air-charging, battery replacement and daily checks of Group Support Equipment/Vehicles. To perform inciden-tal paper work for recording, reporting incidents/accidents, operations, maintenance, etc. To assist Operators/Technicians in performance of their jobs. To tow aircraft and other Ground Support Equipment/dolleys, trolleys, etc. as per laid down pro-cedures. To keep current licences/permits required for opera-tion/driving of vehicles/equipments as laid down from time to time.”
Under the relevant rules, the qualification prescribed is as follows:
“2.1 S.S.C. or its equivalent with three years Government recog-nised diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Automobile Engineering and having two years’ experience in equipment operations or driving and possessing current heavy vehicle driving licence.
OR
2.2 S.S.C. with I.T.I. certificate or equivalent in Associated Trades of Mechanical/Electrical/Automobile courses and having five years’ experience in equipment operating or driving and possessing current heavy vehicle driving licence.”
4. The respondent has obtained the ITI certificate in June 1994 and he had about five years of experience after obtaining the cer-tificate and diploma in Mechanical Engineering was obtained in April 1996. In any event, it is clear that the experience ob-tained by him falls short of the requisite qualification. This Court in N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (JT 1991 (5) SC 354 = 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 584); Gurdial Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (1995 (3) 332) and Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., (JT 1995 (3) SC 87 = 2000 (1) SCC 128), has explained the necessity to obtain experience after obtaining the requisite qualification.
5. When in addition to qualification, experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualification and not before obtaining such qualifica-tion. In the case of the respondent, he obtained the ITI cer-tificate in the year 1994 and, therefore, did not possess five years of experience as required under the relevant rule. If his qualification as a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering is taken note of, he has not completed three years of experience as he got the same in April, 1996 and on relevant date he did not possess such qualification. Indeed in prescribing qualification and experience, it is also made clear in the general information instruction at Item No.6 that “experience will be computed after the date of acquiring the necessary qualifications”. Therefore, when this requirement was made very clear that he should have experience only after acquiring the qualification, the view taken by the High Court to the contrary either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench, does not stand to reason.
6. Therefore, we allow these appeals, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the re-spondent in the High Court. No costs.
