AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shaffique, J
This appeal has been filed by some of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7374/2019 challenging judgment dated 25/9/2020. The petitioners were employed as Assistant General Managers under the Airports Authority of India. They entered service as Technical Assistants and Communication Assistants in the erstwhile Civil Aviation Department and National Airports Authority. As part of modernisation, a decision was taken by National Airports Authority to re-designate the posts in the Communication and Technical Assistants/Officers as Electronics Assistants/Officers respectively.
Electronic Assistant was a feeder category for both the Communications and Technical Assistants, and vacancies were filled up by posting the newly recruited Electronic Assistants. It is pointed out that recruitment was being done at Electronic Officers cadre level with degree in Electronics Engineering as essential minimum qualification. They were appointed against specific vacancies identified among Communication/Technical and Communication/Operation categories. It is further pointed out that as per the UPSC Policy, in Class I cadre 1:1 ratio promotions were implemented between directly recruited candidates and departmental promoted candidates. Petitioners pointed out that the management prepared a draft seniority list on 13/12/2011 in which Electronic Assistants were treated as a separate cadre and the seniority was fixed in the ratio 1:1:1 from the Communication/Technical cadre, Operations Cadre and Electronics cadre. When the aforesaid irregularity was brought to the notice of the authorities, the said draft seniority list was withdrawn. Another combined seniority list came to be prepared on 27/2/2015 treating the officials of the Electronics wing as a separate cadre. The matter came to be challenged before the Delhi High Court and direction was issued to finalise the draft seniority list after inviting objections. Final seniority list was published on 18/10/2018 which according to the petitioner is similar to the one which was published on 27/2/2015. Yet another provisional seniority list of Assistant General Manager/Senior Manager was prepared in the same lines as Ext.P6 on 20/11/2018, which is filed as Ext.P7. It is further pointed out that, on 11/2/2019, a new combined seniority list has been published following the ratio of 1:1:1, which according to the petitioner has no legal or factual basis. Accordingly, this writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P4, P6, P7, P9 and seeking other consequential orders.
The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that in the year 1989-90, in order to weed out, the cadres of Commercial Operation (Com-Ops) and Commercial Technical (Com-Tech) and also to bring in a single cadre, it was decided to induct personnel in Communication Discipline as Electronics Asstt.(EA) instead of Technical Asstt./Communication Asstt. (TA/CA) and Electronics Officer (EO), instead of Technical Officer/Communication Officer (TO/CO) who could discharge the duties of operation as well as technical maintenance after common training at Civil Aviation, Training College (CATC). After the induction of Electronics Assistants (EAS) and Electronic Officers (Eos) their seniorities were being maintained separately and they were considered as feeder Asstt./Technical Officers/Communication Asstt./Communication Officers for vacancies arising in both Com-Ops and Com-cadre along with Technical Tech Discipline as feeder cadre. It is further contended that the appointment and selection of fresh candidates are made as per AAI, Recruitment and Promotion Regulation, 2005 and its amendments from time to time. The ratio of 3:1 (DPC & Direct Recruitment ie. 75:25) is being followed at Manager (Group A) level. The seniority of all the three cadres (Com-T/Com-Ops./Elex.) are maintained separately. However, the Combined seniority list is prepared at the level of AGM (Com-Tech/Ops/Elex) level in the ratio of 1:1:1 for promotion to DGM (CNS) level as per approval dated 26/10/2004, issued by CHQ of AAL, New Delhi [Ext-R2(a)]. The promotion is made on fulfilment of the R&P regulations and satisfying the eligibility criteria, such as seniority of the cadre, reservation (as applicable), number of vacancies, number of years of service in the grade, satisfactory PAR grading and Vigilance/Disciplinary clearance. It is stated that the decision dated 26/10/2004 was found to be the most plausible way for fixing the seniority of Sr.Technical Officers, Sr.Communication Officers, Senior Electronics Officers in the ratio of 1:1:1 as per the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) year. It is further stated that, if in any year there remains excess STO/SCO/SEO, the same will be clubbed together. Draft seniority list of SM(Com- Tech/Com-Ops./Elex) for promotion as DGM was circulated based on the said decision. With reference to withdrawal of seniority of Com-T/Com Ops./Elex on 30/12/2011 [Ext.P2], according to the respondents, it was due to dissatisfaction expressed by individual officers of Officers' Association in merging the seniority list as they were not being benefitted at that time. Their seniority list had been maintained separately and promotions were also being given based on the separate seniority list up to the level of SM/AGM. For promotions from AGM (Com-Tech/Ops/Elex) to DGM(CNS) level, the seniority of AGM (Com-Tech, Ops. and Elex) are combined in the ratio of 1:1:1 as per the approval dated 26/10/2004. It is also stated that promotion of more than 400 AGMS to DGM (CNS) have already been made by AAI considering this ratio of 1:1:1 as per decision of the Competent Authority and many promotees, beneficiaries have since been superannuated.
The learned Single Judge after considering the materials placed on record observed that, first of all, when seniority list is under challenge, all the persons who were in the seniority list were not made parties. Secondly, though some of them were impleaded, some were deleted from the party
array. Further it was found that no objection is seen to have been raised by the petitioners to the ratio in the cadres up to the post of AGM and in the result, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
Primarily, learned counsel for the appellants sought for the matter to be remitted back to enable the interested parties to be made parties to the case in order to successfully challenge the seniority list published by the 1st respondent. We do not think that such a mode would render any assistance to the petitioners. As already mentioned by the respondents in their counter affidavit, the seniority of all three cadres i.e., Commercial Technical, Commercial Operation and Electronics are maintained separately. However, the combined seniority list is prepared at the level of AGM (COM- Tech/Ops/Elex) in the ratio 1:1:1 for promotion to DGM(CNS) level, which was approved as per Ext.R2(a) dated 26/10/2004. According to the respondent, it was the most plausible way for fixing the seniority of Senior Technical Officers, Senior Communication Officers and Senior Electronics Officers. Apparently, the decision to prepare a combined seniority list in the ratio 1:1:1 is not under challenge. Of course, the petitioners challenge Ext.P4, which is a communication issued by the respondents in answer to a representation considered by them pursuant to directions issued in the writ petitions filed before High Court of Delhi. After considering the representation, it was held at paragraph 3 as under:-
“In view of the above facts, it is apparent that no injustice has been done to the petitioners and their representation has no merit as the promotions to the level of Senior Manager were made uniformly in all the streams (Com- Tech/Ops/Elex) and as per AAIR 7 P Regulations against the available vacancies. Therefore, the combined seniority list as on 1st Jan 2015 circulated vide letter dated 27.2.2015 which was prepared based on the principle of “rotation of regularly promoted SMs of each year in the ratio of 1:1:1 (Com-tech Ops Electronics) and the balance, if any bunched together” is in order. Accordingly, the representations of the petitioners stand disposed of.”
In fact, by Ext.P4, the respondents were only confirming the decision to apply the ratio 1:1:1 among the three categories. Therefore, challenge of Ext.P4 by itself does not enable the appellants to justify their stand as urged in the appeal.
Under such circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. We see no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.