K.A. Nagamani vs Indian Airlines & Ors

2. Brief facts needed for disposal of this appeal are as under:

4. Thereafter interviews were held on 15.10.1990 for the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems). The said post was to be filled from the merged seniority list of hardware and software cadres. The Management vide its letter dated 23.11.1990 informed the appellant and others that their candidatures were being considered for filling up the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems). Thereafter, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were selected for the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems). The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the promotion of respondent nos. 2 to 4 as the writ petition filed by her was dismissed and confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court.

5. The High Court inter alia held that promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) is 4 to be on the basis of merit and, therefore, found no merit in the submission of the appellant that her juniors (respondent nos. 3 & 4) could not have been promoted to the said post. That so far as the promotion of the second respondent is concerned the Division Bench while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge found that his promotion had been upheld by the court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3647/93 titled as Jaidev Chakraborthy & Ors. Vs. Indian Airlines & Ors. in which the appellant herein was also arrayed as a party respondent.

18. The appellant herself relied on number of recruitments and promotion guidelines issued from time to time without questioning and challenging the same. The agreement between the Corporation and its Officers' Association including the promotion of 2nd respondent as noted herein above was subject matter of the writ petition filed by Joydev Chakraborthy in 20 which the appellant was arrayed as respondent. The High Court upheld the promotion of the 2nd respondent as Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) based on the agreement between Indian Airlines and its Officers' Association. The High Court upheld the merger of the two cadres/streams. The judgment of the High Court attained its finality.

20. Now we shall consider the question whether promotion of respondent no. 3 and 4 was valid?

24. For the aforesaid reasons, we concur with the view taken by the High Court that seniority alone was not the determinative criteria for promotion, merit or comparative merit was also taken into consideration by the Selection Board and the same is not contrary to law and guidelines.

This authoritative pronouncement of this Court, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy raised by the appellant. It is not necessary to dilate any further on the subject. 31

27. No other point arises for consideration.

However, before parting with the case, we must make it clear that the appellant in her anxiety to persuade this Court to set aside the promotion of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and to secure a writ of mandamus to grant her seniority, cited number of 33 authorities in her written submissions. On consideration, we find many of them are not relevant for the purposes of disposal of this appeal and for that reason we have relied upon only such of those judgments which are relevant to decide the appeal.

28. We are unable to grant any relief to the appellant but appreciate the manner in which the appellant presented her case before us.

29. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

March 27, 2009