INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION versus CAPT. K.C. SHUKLA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 23-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
CAPT. K.C. SHUKLA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 1992 
(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Airlines Promotion & Recruitment Rules: Rule 8 & IO: 
Service La11>-Selection post-Deputy Operations Manager-Selection 
based on interview and Annual Confidential Reports-Validity of-Scope and C 
power of Court to evaluate fitness of a candidate-Court cannot assume the 
role of Selection Commiuee. 
Air Corporations, 1953: Section 34. 
Central Governments' letter of advisory nature-Cannot amend Rules. D 
Under the. Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the appellant-Cor· 
poration the post of Deputy Operations Manager was to be filled by 
selection and promotion. The method of evaluation to be adopted by the 
Selection Committee was 50% on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports 
and 50% on the basis of Interview (percentage of marks later reduced to E 
40%). However, by a letter issued in 1987 the Managing Director of the 
appellant-Corporation advised that while making the selection seniority 
should be adhered to. 
The first respondent filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court 
claiming promotion to the post. of Deputy Operations Manager from the 
date other respondents were promoted. The High Court allowed the relief 
prayed for holding that (i) the selection based on Annual Confidential 
Reports and Interview was contrary to rules; (ii) the Selection Committee 
F 
was not validly constituted. The High Court was also ol" the view 'that the 
letter of Managing Director issued In 1987 was a dil"ection by the Central G 
Government. The High Court's ~rder was challenged in this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Adjusting equities in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction 
in one thing but assuming the role of Selection Committee is another. The H 
811 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP.! S.C.R. 
A Court cannot substitute its opinion and devise Its own method of evaluat· 
Ing fitness of a candidate for a particular post. Not that it Is powerless to 
do so and in a case where after removing the illegal part it is found that 
the officer was not promoted or selected contrary to law it can issue 
necessary direction. But it would be going tM far If the Court Itself 
B evaluates fitness or otherwise of a candidate, as in this case. (814 A·CJ 
2. The alternative relief granted by the High Court by reducing the 
Interview percentage and then working out proportionally the marks ob-
tained by respondent on Annual Confidential Report evaluation and Inter· 
view and directing to promote him as by this method be would secure the 
c minimum required cannot be· accepted as proper exercise or jurisdiction 
Wider Article 226. The High Court was also not justified in Its finding that 
the Committee was illegally constituted. [813·H, 814-A, 816-B] 
3. As regards the proportion between written test and interview or 
evaluation on confidential entries and personality test distinction appears 
D to have been drawn In Interview held for competitive examinations or 
admission In educational Institutions and selection for higher posts. Elfort 
bas been made to eUmlnate scope of arbitrariness in the former by nar-
rowing down the proportion as various factors are likely to creep in. But 
Sllllle standard cannot be applied for higher selection. In respondent's case 
E hls personality was judged by a committee constituted under the mies for 
purposes of higher promotional post. Therefore, It would be unsafe to 
strike down the rules as arbitrary when the evaluation was job oriented. 
From the record it appears the Committee was neither gullty of arbltrarl· 
ness nor It violated any rnle or regulation In allotting the marks which of 
F course were very low In Interview. (814 D·H] 
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (191111 4 S.C.C. 159, relied on. 
Ajay Basia&: Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ori., (1981) 1 S.C.C. 
722; Ashok Kumar Yadav &: Ors, etc. v. State of Hruyana & Ors. etc, (1985) 
G 4 S.C.C; 417 and State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin & Ors., (1987] Supp; S.C.C. 
401, referred to. 
4. Rules cannot be taken to be BD1ended by the leiter of the Central 
Government which was Issued as an advice that wblle making selection to 
the post of Deputy Operations Manager normally seniority should be 
H adhered to. (815 F·H, 816-AJ 
INDIAN AIRLINES. v. CAPT. SHUKLA (SAHA!, J.] 
813 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3929 of A 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.1991 o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.