National Airport Authority Vs. Nilu Sharma & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5163 of 1998
( Arising out of SLP (c) No. 551/1998 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.97 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 2784 of 1994 )
( Arising out of SLP (c) No. 551/1998 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.97 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 2784 of 1994 )
Petitioner: National Airport Authority
Respondent: Nilu Sharma & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5163 of 1998
( Arising out of SLP (c) No. 551/1998 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.97 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 2784 of 1994 )
( Arising out of SLP (c) No. 551/1998 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.97 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 2784 of 1994 )
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 16, 1998
Appearances:
Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar , Advocate for the appellant ;
Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria and Mr. S.K. Bisaria , Advocates for the Respondents .
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
National Airports Authority – Letter dated 17-3-1994 – Appoint-ment – Post of Private Secretary – Zone of consideration widened from candidates in Steno Gr. I and Steno Gr. II , to Steno Gr. I , Gr. II and Gr. III with 20 years combined service – Appointment by written test and selection by interview – Selection of Re-spondent quashed on grounds that post was to be filled by promo-tion from amongst Steno Gr. I . Held that High Court was wrong as post was to be filled by selection . Orders set-aside .
National Airports Authority – Letter dated 17-3-1994 – Appoint-ment – Post of Private Secretary – Zone of consideration widened from candidates in Steno Gr. I and Steno Gr. II , to Steno Gr. I , Gr. II and Gr. III with 20 years combined service – Appointment by written test and selection by interview – Selection of Re-spondent quashed on grounds that post was to be filled by promo-tion from amongst Steno Gr. I . Held that High Court was wrong as post was to be filled by selection . Orders set-aside .
Held:
The post being a selection post , was required to be filled up by selecting a suitable person from amongst stenographers Grade I and stenographers Grade II. The selection was to be made on the basis of a written and an oral test . Respondent No. 9 stood first in the test and , therefore , he was rightly appointed as Private Secretary . For the reasons stated above , we hold that the High Court was wrong in quashing the appointment of respond-ent No.9 and directing NAA to consider Nilu Sharma for appoint-ment as a Private Secretary by applying the criteria of seniori-ty-cum-suitability . ( Para 7 )
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI , J.
1 . Leave granted .
2 . Heard learned counsel for the parties .
3 . Nilu Sharma , respondent No. 1 , filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the National Airports Authority ( herei-nafter referred to as ‘ NAA ‘ ) and others , challenging appointment of C.V. Marthandan , respondent No.9 , as Private Secretary and for a direction to NAA to promote her as Private Secretary on the basis of her seniority . The High Court allowed the writ peti-tion , quashed the appointment of respondent No.9 and directed NAA to consider Nilu Sharma for appointment as Private Secretary by applying the criteria of seniority-cum-suitability . NAA has , therefore , filed this appeal .
4 . Prior to 1990 , there was no post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ in the organisation of NAA . In May , 1990 , it created four fresh posts of Private Secretary , one each for the offices at Bombay , Calcutta , Delhi and Madras , in the pay-scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/-. On July 5 , 1990 , it issued a Memorandum informing all concerned that the said posts were to be filled up from amongst stenographers Grade I and Grade II having a combined service of 8 years . By the same Memorandum , Smt. Khade and Nilu Sharma were requested to appear for the interview as they were the only two stenographers found eligible for selection to the said post . Before they could be interviewed , the proposal to fill up the posts in that manner was cancelled by issuing a Memorandum dated 12.7.1990 . In 1992 , to fill up the two vacant posts at Bombay and Delhi , Nilu Sharma and two others , namely , M. Ranganathan of Madras office and Sheikh Asadullah of Calcutta office were con-sidered by the Departmental Promotion Committee . Only Sheikh Asadullah was found fit for appointment , but as he refused to move out of Calcutta , no appointment could be made . On February 9 , 1993 , NAA again informed the Regional Executive Directors of Delhi and Bombay offices that all stenographers with a total of 20 years ‘ combined service as steno Grade I and steno Grade II have been made eligible for the post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ ; and that the selection would be made on the basis of a written test followed by an interview . All those who were willing to appear in the test , were required to submit their willingness by 28.2.1993 . The test for the post in Delhi office was held in June , 1993 and one Baljit Singh , who stood first , was appointed . For the vacant post in the Bombay office , no test could be held . As Nilu Sharma was due to retire by January , 1998 , it was decided to consider her again for the said post . The D.P.C. again found her unfit and , therefore , she could not be appointed . Probably , finding it difficult to fill up the post from amongst Grade I and Grade II stenographers , having combined service of 20 years , NAA decided to widen the zone of consideration and consequently all stenographers , Grade I and Grade II with an overall service of 20 years as stenographer Grade III , Grade II and Grade I were made eligible for appearing in the test . NAA , thereafter , by its letter dated 17.3.1994 wrote to the Regional Executive Director , Bombay , to forward a list of eligible and willing candidates to the Headquarters by 30.3.1994 . At the test held thereafter , Nilu Sharma , respondent No. 9 and others appeared . Respondent No. 9 stood first . Nilu Sharma was again not found suitable . In view of his first position in the merit list , respondent No.9 was appointed as ‘ Private Secretary ‘ on 1.8.1994 . Nilu Sharma then filed a writ petition as stated above .
5 . Her main contention before the High Court was that the post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ was required to be filled up by promotion of stenographers Grade I on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and as she was the senior most stenographer Grade I , she ought to have been promoted to that post . It was her conten-tion that respondent No. 9 was not in the cadre of stenographer Grade I and , therefore , was not eligible for consideration and much less for appointment as ‘ Private Secretary ‘ . The High Court held that ” undisputedly till before 1994 the post of the personal secretary was to be filled in by promotion from amongst the Stenographers in Grade I on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability . ” It further held that ” Undisputedly further , Re-spondent No. 9 was not in the cadre of Grade I Stenographers , ” and therefore NAA was not justified in by-passing the claim of Nilu Sharma ” under the guise of introducing a device of selec-tion ” . Taking this view , the High Court allowed her petition .
6 . Mrs. Rachna Joshi , learned counsel for the appellant , drew our attention to the office Memorandum dated 5.7.1990 wherein it is clearly stated that the four posts of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ for Executive Directors were to be filled in from amongst the stenog-raphers , Grade I and Grade II , on the basis of the said office Memorandum . She also drew our attention to the subsequent let-ters and submitted that right from the beginning the rule was that both stenographers Grade I and Grade II were eligible for appointment as ‘ Private Secretary ‘ and , therefore , the High Court has gone wrong in holding that till 1994 the practice was to appoint Private Secretary by promoting a suitable person from amongst the cadre of stenographers Grade I only .
7 . We have earlier referred to the Memorandum dated 5.7.1990 which clearly stated that the four posts of Private Secretary for Executive Directors were to be filled up from amongst stenogra-phers Grade I and Grade II . The two subsequent letters dated 9.2.1993 and 17.3.1994 by NAA also made it clear that both stenographers Grade I and Grade II were eligible for the post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ . What was stated in the letter dated 9.2.1993 was : ” Accordingly , all Stenographers with a total of 20 years ‘ combined service as Steno Gr-I/Steno Gr-II will be eligi-ble to apply for the post . ” The same letter further stated that ” Selection will be on the basis of a written test and interview . ” In the letter dated 17.3.1994 , it was again stated that ” All Stenographers Grade I and Grade II with an overall service of 20 years as Stenographer Grade III , Stenographer Grade II and Stenographer Grade I ” in your region are eligible to appear in the examination . ” Thus , right from 1990 till respondent No. 9 was appointed as Private Secretary , the position was that all stenog-raphers in Grade I and Grade II were eligible for the said post . Earlier , their experience in Grade I and Grade II alone was to be counted , but after 17.3.1994 their experience as Stenographer Grade III was also to be taken into account . In its counter affidavit filed in the High Court , NAA had stated that the post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ is a selection post and not a promotional post . It is , therefore , difficult to appreciate how the High Court held that till 1994 the post of Private Secretary was to be filled up by promotion from amongst the stenographers Grade I . Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nilu Sharma was not in a position to point out any material on the basis of which it can be said that the view taken by the High Court is correct . The post being a selection post , was required to be filled up by selecting a suitable person from amongst stenographers Grade I and stenographers Grade II . The selection was to be made on the basis of a written and an oral test . Respondent No. 9 stood first in the test and , therefore , he was rightly appointed as Private Secretary . For the reasons stated above , we hold that the High Court was wrong in quashing the appointment of respond-ent No.9 and directing NAA to consider Nilu Sharma for appoint-ment as a Private Secretary by applying the criteria of seniori-ty-cum-suitability .
8 . We , therefore , allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court . The writ petition filed by Nilu Sharma before the High Court shall stand dismissed . No order as to costs .
1 . Leave granted .
2 . Heard learned counsel for the parties .
3 . Nilu Sharma , respondent No. 1 , filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the National Airports Authority ( herei-nafter referred to as ‘ NAA ‘ ) and others , challenging appointment of C.V. Marthandan , respondent No.9 , as Private Secretary and for a direction to NAA to promote her as Private Secretary on the basis of her seniority . The High Court allowed the writ peti-tion , quashed the appointment of respondent No.9 and directed NAA to consider Nilu Sharma for appointment as Private Secretary by applying the criteria of seniority-cum-suitability . NAA has , therefore , filed this appeal .
4 . Prior to 1990 , there was no post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ in the organisation of NAA . In May , 1990 , it created four fresh posts of Private Secretary , one each for the offices at Bombay , Calcutta , Delhi and Madras , in the pay-scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/-. On July 5 , 1990 , it issued a Memorandum informing all concerned that the said posts were to be filled up from amongst stenographers Grade I and Grade II having a combined service of 8 years . By the same Memorandum , Smt. Khade and Nilu Sharma were requested to appear for the interview as they were the only two stenographers found eligible for selection to the said post . Before they could be interviewed , the proposal to fill up the posts in that manner was cancelled by issuing a Memorandum dated 12.7.1990 . In 1992 , to fill up the two vacant posts at Bombay and Delhi , Nilu Sharma and two others , namely , M. Ranganathan of Madras office and Sheikh Asadullah of Calcutta office were con-sidered by the Departmental Promotion Committee . Only Sheikh Asadullah was found fit for appointment , but as he refused to move out of Calcutta , no appointment could be made . On February 9 , 1993 , NAA again informed the Regional Executive Directors of Delhi and Bombay offices that all stenographers with a total of 20 years ‘ combined service as steno Grade I and steno Grade II have been made eligible for the post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ ; and that the selection would be made on the basis of a written test followed by an interview . All those who were willing to appear in the test , were required to submit their willingness by 28.2.1993 . The test for the post in Delhi office was held in June , 1993 and one Baljit Singh , who stood first , was appointed . For the vacant post in the Bombay office , no test could be held . As Nilu Sharma was due to retire by January , 1998 , it was decided to consider her again for the said post . The D.P.C. again found her unfit and , therefore , she could not be appointed . Probably , finding it difficult to fill up the post from amongst Grade I and Grade II stenographers , having combined service of 20 years , NAA decided to widen the zone of consideration and consequently all stenographers , Grade I and Grade II with an overall service of 20 years as stenographer Grade III , Grade II and Grade I were made eligible for appearing in the test . NAA , thereafter , by its letter dated 17.3.1994 wrote to the Regional Executive Director , Bombay , to forward a list of eligible and willing candidates to the Headquarters by 30.3.1994 . At the test held thereafter , Nilu Sharma , respondent No. 9 and others appeared . Respondent No. 9 stood first . Nilu Sharma was again not found suitable . In view of his first position in the merit list , respondent No.9 was appointed as ‘ Private Secretary ‘ on 1.8.1994 . Nilu Sharma then filed a writ petition as stated above .
5 . Her main contention before the High Court was that the post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ was required to be filled up by promotion of stenographers Grade I on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and as she was the senior most stenographer Grade I , she ought to have been promoted to that post . It was her conten-tion that respondent No. 9 was not in the cadre of stenographer Grade I and , therefore , was not eligible for consideration and much less for appointment as ‘ Private Secretary ‘ . The High Court held that ” undisputedly till before 1994 the post of the personal secretary was to be filled in by promotion from amongst the Stenographers in Grade I on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability . ” It further held that ” Undisputedly further , Re-spondent No. 9 was not in the cadre of Grade I Stenographers , ” and therefore NAA was not justified in by-passing the claim of Nilu Sharma ” under the guise of introducing a device of selec-tion ” . Taking this view , the High Court allowed her petition .
6 . Mrs. Rachna Joshi , learned counsel for the appellant , drew our attention to the office Memorandum dated 5.7.1990 wherein it is clearly stated that the four posts of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ for Executive Directors were to be filled in from amongst the stenog-raphers , Grade I and Grade II , on the basis of the said office Memorandum . She also drew our attention to the subsequent let-ters and submitted that right from the beginning the rule was that both stenographers Grade I and Grade II were eligible for appointment as ‘ Private Secretary ‘ and , therefore , the High Court has gone wrong in holding that till 1994 the practice was to appoint Private Secretary by promoting a suitable person from amongst the cadre of stenographers Grade I only .
7 . We have earlier referred to the Memorandum dated 5.7.1990 which clearly stated that the four posts of Private Secretary for Executive Directors were to be filled up from amongst stenogra-phers Grade I and Grade II . The two subsequent letters dated 9.2.1993 and 17.3.1994 by NAA also made it clear that both stenographers Grade I and Grade II were eligible for the post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ . What was stated in the letter dated 9.2.1993 was : ” Accordingly , all Stenographers with a total of 20 years ‘ combined service as Steno Gr-I/Steno Gr-II will be eligi-ble to apply for the post . ” The same letter further stated that ” Selection will be on the basis of a written test and interview . ” In the letter dated 17.3.1994 , it was again stated that ” All Stenographers Grade I and Grade II with an overall service of 20 years as Stenographer Grade III , Stenographer Grade II and Stenographer Grade I ” in your region are eligible to appear in the examination . ” Thus , right from 1990 till respondent No. 9 was appointed as Private Secretary , the position was that all stenog-raphers in Grade I and Grade II were eligible for the said post . Earlier , their experience in Grade I and Grade II alone was to be counted , but after 17.3.1994 their experience as Stenographer Grade III was also to be taken into account . In its counter affidavit filed in the High Court , NAA had stated that the post of ‘ Private Secretary ‘ is a selection post and not a promotional post . It is , therefore , difficult to appreciate how the High Court held that till 1994 the post of Private Secretary was to be filled up by promotion from amongst the stenographers Grade I . Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nilu Sharma was not in a position to point out any material on the basis of which it can be said that the view taken by the High Court is correct . The post being a selection post , was required to be filled up by selecting a suitable person from amongst stenographers Grade I and stenographers Grade II . The selection was to be made on the basis of a written and an oral test . Respondent No. 9 stood first in the test and , therefore , he was rightly appointed as Private Secretary . For the reasons stated above , we hold that the High Court was wrong in quashing the appointment of respond-ent No.9 and directing NAA to consider Nilu Sharma for appoint-ment as a Private Secretary by applying the criteria of seniori-ty-cum-suitability .
8 . We , therefore , allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court . The writ petition filed by Nilu Sharma before the High Court shall stand dismissed . No order as to costs .
