CAPT. KARAN VASWANI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 745 · Decided: 29-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,._ 
CAPT. KARAN VASWANI 
A 
...._., 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH29, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JI.] 
B 
Service Law : 
The New Mangalore Port Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Department) 
Regulations, 1991-Regulations 3(i), 5, 9 & JO-Recruitment-To the post to c 
Deputy Conservator-Requirement of JO years experience as Master of foreign 
going ship or as Pilot-Nature and functions of a Master and a Pilot being 
similar-JVhether the experiences of both the posts can be clubbed together for 
the purpose of recruitment-Held, Yes,-The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963-
Sections 2(n) and 124-Tlze Mangalore Port (Authorisation of Powers) Regu-
lations, 1980-Merr:hant Shipping Act, 1958-ss. 3( 13), 3(22). 
D 
Appellant and respondent No. 4 applied for appointment to the post 
of Deputy Conservator, the experience required for which was 10 years 
as Master of foreign going ship or in pilotage and dredging in a Major 
Port Trust Respondent No. 4 had the experience of 6 years as Master and 
E 
9 years as a pilot and the appellant's experience was 2 years as Master 
• 
and 11 years as Pilot. After the interview respondent No. 4 was appointed . 
In the interview, one incident of sinking was specifically asked from the 
respondent No. 4. The appellant had made representation to the Govern-
ment wherein it was alleged by the appellant that the respondent No. 4 
F 
had suppressed the incident of sinking. This representation was consid-
ered by the Ministry of Surface and Transport and it did no find any 
merit in that. 
The appellant challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 in 
the High Court by filing a Writ Petition, which was allowed by Single 
G 
Judge holding that respondent No. 4 was not eligible to be appointed on 
the post as he did not possess experience as provided in the Schedule to 
.... 
the Registrations. In appeal the Division Bench dismissed the writ peti-
tion, holding that the experience as Master and Pilot can be clubbed 
together for considering 10 years experience. 
H 
745 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this court, the appellant contended that the post of 
-· 
'Master' does not include in its ambit the post of 'Pilot' and that the 
·--
respondent was guilty of suppression of material information (the incident 
of sinking), which, if known, would have debarred him from appointment. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. There is no prohibition in the regulations in clubbing of 
the two experiences as Master and Pilot. Regulation 3(i) of The New 
-
Mangalore Port Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Department) Regulations, 
· 1991 has equated the two experience. H the contention of the appellant is 
c 
accepted, it will mean that despite having vast experience but less than 10 
years as Master of foreign-going ship and having equally vast experience as 
a Pilot, a person would still be ineligible for being considered for the post of 
Deputy Conservator. (749-G-H; 750-A] 
1.2. The post of 'Master' does not include in it the post of 'Pilot'. 
D 
However that by itself does not show that the experience as a master of 
foreign~going ship cannot be clubbed with the experience of a pilot to 
satisfy the recruitment of experience provided in the regulations for the 
post of Deputy Conservator. (749-C] 
1.3. The nature and functions of a Master and a Pilot are similar. 
E 
Both have to possess certificate of competency as Master of foreign-going 
ship. The Union of India has throughout understood and implemented the 
stipulation about experience, to mean the total experience, either as Pilot or 
as a Master and clubbing the two, has considered the case of recruitment in 
the past as well. It cannot be said that the interpretation placed by the 
F 
respondents is not reasonable or is impermissible. (750-C-E] 
2. There is no substance in the contention that respondent had· sup-
pressed the material fact regarding sinking incident. There is no infirmity 
in the approach of the Ministry. Further, admittedly for the post of Deputy 
Conservator, neither attestation form is required to be filled nor any such 
G 
form was filled which is unlike the requirement to be complied with at the 
time of appointment as a Pilot. [750-G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2281-83 of 
( 
2000. 
--
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.97 of the Kamataka High 
CAPT. KARAN VASWANI v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 
Court in W.A. No. 8510-12of1996. 
747 
P.P. Rao, M.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.