IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5314 OF 2007

K.A. Nagamani  …Appellant  

Versus

Indian Airlines & Ors.              … Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment

and order of the High Court of Delhi passed in LPA (C)

No.  1069  of  2004  affirming  the  judgment  of  the

learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2338 of 1991.  

1

2. Brief facts needed for disposal of this appeal are

as under:  

3. The appellant Ms. K.A. Nagamani was appointed

as a Programmer with the Indian Airlines in the year

1984.  The designation of the post of Programmer was

changed to that of  System Officer  in the year 1985.

The appellant was promoted to the next higher post of

Assistant  Manager  (Systems)  in  the  Department  of

Electronic Data Processing (for short ‘EDP’) sometime

in the  year  1986 and confirmed in  the said  post  on

15.9.1987.  The  EDP  consisted  of  four  divisions  viz.

Software,  Hardware,  Data  Communications  and

Computer  Operations.   Indian  Airlines  Officers’

Association  vide  its  representations  dated  19.9.1990

and  28.9.1990  suggested  and  requested  the

Management  to  merge  the  hardware  and  software

cadres  and  to  prepare  a  common seniority  list.    A

2

common seniority list dated 24.9.1990 had been drawn

for the purpose of promotions.  

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

3

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.  

6. The main thrust of the submission made by the

appellant in-person was that the promotion to the post

of  Deputy  Manager  (Maintenance/Systems)  could  not

have been made based on the terms of the settlement

between  the  Indian  Airlines  and  its  Officers’

Association.   That  all  along there has been separate

seniority  list  of  Assistant  Managers  and  Senior

4

Computer  Officers  in  EDP  Department  of  the

Corporation. The respondent no. 2 was on seniority list

of  Systems  Officers  who  was  promoted  as  Assistant

Manager (Systems) in 1985 and continued to be borne

on the seniority list of Assistant Manager (Systems) till

1988. Though, he was on the cadre of Systems called

for interview for the post of Senior  Computer Officer

(Technical) in 1988 and was illegally shown at sl. no. 1

in the seniority list of Senior Computer Officer. He was

not eligible to be considered for the higher post.  That

Rule  4  (d)  of  the  Recruitment  and  Promotion  Rules

provides that within a department, employees will  be

divided into kindred occupational groups called cadres

as shown in  the annexed schedule  to the Rules and

seniority shall be on the basis of such cadres.  That the

cadres of Systems and Maintenance being new cadres

have not been shown in the annexed schedule but have

been  shown  separately  on  seniority  lists.  The

submission was: two separate cadres could not have

5

been merged into one based on agreement arrived at

between the Corporation and the Officers’ Association.

It was submitted that settlement  arrived at between

the  Management  and  the  Officers’  Association  is

contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules which

govern the promotions of the officers from the lower

post  to  the  higher  post.  It  was  submitted  that  the

Recruitment  and  Promotion  Rules  are  statutory  in

nature  and  binding  upon  the  Management.   The

agreement/settlement  is  contrary  to  the  Recruitment

and Promotion Rules.

7. Shri  P.S.  Narasimha,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing  on  behalf  of  the  first  respondent  ably

supported the judgment  under  appeal  and submitted

that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any

errors requiring interference of this court.

6

8. Be  it  noted,  the  appellant  did  not  make  any

challenge in the writ petition as regards the validity of

the merger of two cadres.  She, however, appears to

have  raised  the  dispute  for  the  first  time  in  her

rejoinder affidavit filed in the High Court.  There is no

prayer to set aside the settlement arrived at between

the Management and the Officers’ Association of which

she is also a member.  It is not as if the appellant was

not aware of  the  merger  of  two streams in  the EDP

Department and consequent preparation of a combined

seniority list.  The appellant was a party- respondent in

writ petition No. 3647/93 in which the same issue as

the  one  raised  by  the  appellant  had  fallen  for

consideration  and  the  High  Court  after  an  elaborate

consideration found nothing wrong with the settlement

and merger of the cadres. The Letters Patent Appeal

no. 75/94 preferred against the said judgment of the

learned Single Judge came to be dismissed because of

7

the non-appearance of the appellant vide order dated

7.5.2001.  

9. The main issue that arises for our consideration is

whether  the  Recruitment  &  Promotion  Rules  are

statutory in nature or mere administrative instructions?

The  said  Rules  are  issued  in  exercise  of  the

powers conferred by Rule 4 read with Rules 8 to 15 of

Indian  Airlines  (Flying  Crew)  Service  Rules,  Indian

Airlines  (Aircraft  Engineering  Department)  Service

Rules and Indian Airlines (Employees other than Flying

Crew  and  those  in  the  Aircraft  Engineering

Department) Service Rules.  The Air Corporations Act,

1953 (for short ‘the Act’) is an Act to provide for the

establishment  of  Air  Corporations,  to  facilitate  the

acquisition  by  the  Air  Corporations  of  undertakings

belonging  to  certain  existing  air  companies  and

generally to make further and better provisions for the

8

operation  of  air  transport  services.  The  Central

Government  by  notification  established  two

Corporations to be known as ‘Indian Airlines’ and ‘Air-

India  International’.  Under  Section  4  of  the  Act  the

general superintendence, direction and management of

the  affairs  and business  of  each  of  the  Corporations

vest  in  a  Board  of  directors  which  consists  of  a

Chairman and other Directors appointed by the Central

Government.  Section  8  provides  for  appointment  of

officers and other employees of the Corporations.  The

appointment of the Managing Director and such other

categories  of  officers  as  specified  after  consultation

with the Chairman shall  be subject to such rules and

approval of the Central Government. Section 44 of the

Act,  which  is  crucial  for  our  purpose  empowers  the

Central Government to make rules to give effect to the

provisions  of  the  Act;  in  particular,  and  without

prejudice to the generality, such rules may provide for

all  or  any  of  the  matters,  namely:  the  terms  and

9

conditions of service of the Managing Director of the

two Corporations; and such other categories of officers

as  may  be  specified  from  time  to  time  under  sub-

section  (1)  of  Section  8.  The  rules  so  made  are

required to be published by notification in the official

gazette.  Every rule made under Section 44, shall be

laid as soon as may be after it  is  made before each

House  of  Parliament  as  provided  for.  Section  45,

confers power on Corporations to make regulations.  It

provides that each of the Corporations may subject to

the rules made by the Government, by notification in

the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent

with   the  Act  or  the  rules  made  thereunder  for  the

administration of the affairs of the Corporation and for

carrying  out  its  functions;  the  regulations  inter  alia

may provide for the terms and conditions of service of

officers and other employees of the Corporation other

than the Managing Director and officers of any other

categories referred to in Section 44.  The regulations

10

made are also required to be placed before each House

of  Parliament.   The  Parliament  is  entitled  to  make

modifications.  

10. The  Indian  Airlines  Corporation  vide  its

Notification  dated  6th April,  1955  in  exercise  of  the

powers conferred by clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section

(2)  of  Section  45  of  the  Act  (27  of  1953)  with  the

previous approval  of the Central  Government notified

the  regulations  which  have come into  force  from 1st

January, 1955.  The Regulations are called the Indian

Airlines  Corporation  Employees  Service  Regulations,

1955.   The  Regulations  deal  with  the  conditions  of

service, recruitment, promotion, discipline, control and

appeal,  pay  and  allowances,  leave  and  retirement

benefits  of  (a)  Flying  Crew;  (b)  Aircraft  Engineering

and (c) other employees, which shall be respectively as

in the following rules namely:-

11

a) The  Indian  Airlines  Corporation  (Flying

Crew) Service Rules;  

b) The Indian Airlines Corporation (Aircraft

Engineering Department) Service Rules;  

c) The  Indian  Airlines  Corporation

(Employees  other  than  Flying  Crew  and

Aircraft  Engineering  Department)  Service

Rules.  

11. Rule 4 of Service Rules for employees other than

the Flying Crew and Aircraft  Engineering  Department

with which we are concerned provides the Corporation

with a right to modify, cancel, or amend all or any of

these rules or supplementary rules issued in connection

with  these  rules,  without  previous  notice  of  their

intention,  and  the  right  to  give  effect  thereto

immediately  from the time or date of issue.   Rule 8

provides for appointments to various posts to be made

by promotion or direct recruitment in accordance with

12

such conditions as the Corporation may determine from

time to time.  Rule 14 provides that the employees of

the  Corporation  will  be  eligible  for  promotion  to  the

higher  grade  subject  to  possessing  the  requisite

educational,  technical  and  other  qualifications  and  is

considered  fit  in  all  respects  for  the  promotion.

Promotions  normally  will  be  made  on  the  basis  of

merit.  

12. As  noticed  herein  above  the  Recruitment  and

Promotion Rules were framed in exercise of the powers

conferred  under  the  Regulations  referred  to  herein

above.  Be it  noted,  there is  no power vested in  the

Corporation to make any rules since Section 44 of the

Act  confers  power  to make rules  only in  the Central

Government  and  not  in  the  Corporation.   The

Corporation is entitled to make only regulations which

it did and published by way of Notification referred to

herein  above  dated  6th April,  1955.  The  Recruitment

13

and  Promotion  Rules  are  not  even  notified  in  the

Gazette  as  it  is  not  required  whereas  the  service

Regulations  referred  to  herein  above  have  been

gazetted.   The Indian Airlines Corporation Employees

Service Regulations, 1955 which are made in exercise

of the powers conferred upon the Corporation by the

Act  are  undoubtedly  statutory  in  nature  but  the

Recruitment and Promotion Rules are not statutory in

their nature.  These Rules are not framed in exercise of

any Rule Making Power. Mere administrative rules are

not legislation of any kind.  They are in the nature of

statements of  policy  and the practice  of  government

departments, statutory authorities,  whether published

or otherwise.  Statutory rules,  which are made under

the  provisions  of  any  enactment  and  regulations,

subject  to  Parliamentary  approval  stand  on  entirely

different footing.  The administrative rules are always

considered and have repeatedly been held to be rules

of administrative practice merely, not rules of law and

14

not delegated legislation  and they have no statutory

force.  Mere description of such rules of administrative

practice as “rules” does not make them to be statutory

rules.   Such  administrative  rules  can  be  modified,

amended  or  consolidated  by  the  authorities  without

following any particular procedure.  There are no legal

restrictions to do so as long as they do not offend the

provisions of the Constitution or statutes or statutory

rules as the case may be.  

13. In  the  present  case  the  agreement/settlement

arrived at between the Management and its  Officers’

Association  has  the  effect  of  protanto  amending  the

Recruitment and Promotion Rules.  The Rules and the

agreement/settlement are complimentary to each other

and have to be read together.

14. The  decisions,  in  Sukhdev  Singh  Vs.

Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi [ AIR 1975

SC  1331],  B.K.  Srinivasan  Versus  State  of

15

Karnataka [ AIR 1987 SC 1059] and Inder Pradash

Gupta  Vs.  State  of  Jammu  &  Kashmir  &  Ors.

[(2004) 6 SCC 786],  in  no manner assist  the point

urged  by  the  appellant.   The  High  Court  having

analysed those decisions came to the right conclusion

that  they  are  not  applicable  in  deciding  the  issue

whether  the  Recruitment  and  Promotion  Rules  are

statutory  in  nature?   We are  in  agreement  with  the

view taken by the High Court.   It  is  unnecessary to

burden  this  short  order  of  ours  with  the  various

authorities  upon which the appellant  sought  to place

reliance  as we have no doubt in our mind whatsoever

that  the  Recruitment  and  Promotion  Rules  are  not

statutory in nature.  

15. For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  we  are  in  complete

agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench

of  the High Court  and as well  as the learned Single

judge in coming to the conclusion  that the Recruitment

16

and  Promotions  Rules  do  not  draw  any  statutory

flavour from the service Regulations.  

16. The next  question  that  requires  consideration  is

whether the merger of the two cadres is valid?  

The Indian Airlines Officers’  Association of which

the  appellant  is  also  a  member  had  requested  the

Corporation for merger of seniority of the cadres. The

Corporation having considered the representations so

made decided that the software and hardware divisions

of EDP Department should be merged and a common

seniority list should be maintained.  It was also decided

that  the  vacancies  of  Deputy  Manager

(Maintenance/Systems) may be filled  up through the

merged  cadre  of  software  and  hardware  where

technically  qualified  personnel  are  available.  Later,

pursuant  to  a  further  request  by  the   Officers’

17

Association,  it  was  decided  that  the  seniority  of

software and maintenance cadre be merged.  

17. We find it difficult to agree with the contention of

the  appellant  that  the  respondents  could  not  have

entered  into  agreement/settlement  with  the  Indian

Airlines  Officers  Association  and  decided  to  make

promotions/appointments  as  per  the  said  agreement

contrary to Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is not

unusual  for  the  Managements  to  consider  the

representation of its Officers’ Association and arrive at

a mutually agreed settlement after negotiations as long

as such settlement does not run counter or contrary to

any statutory instrument. Once it is to be held that the

Recruitment and Promotions Rules are not statutory in

nature but are in the nature of guidelines, there are no

impediments  to  uphold  the  merger  of  software  and

hardware  cadres  into  one  cadre.    Be  it  noted,  the

appellant did not question the merger of cadres in the

18

writ petition filed by her except contending the decision

of the authorities of merger of two cadres into one was

in violation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. No

doubt  an  attempt  was  made  by  the  appellant  to

contend before us that the merger of the two cadres

into  one  is  violative  of  Articles  14  and  16  of  the

Constitution of India.  This belated attempt on the part

of  the  appellant  cannot  be  countenanced  and  we

cannot entertain  any such plea at this  stage without

there  being  any pleadings  in  that  regard  in  the writ

petition filed in the High Court.  

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

19

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.  

19. Now we proceed to consider the case on merits as

to whether the promotion of the respondent nos. 2, 3

and 4 is not in accordance with law?   

The  appellant  nowhere  disputed  the  fact  that

respondent no. 2 – Mr. M.M. Narula is senior to her in

terms of “length of service”.  It is apparent from the

record that when seniority of two cadres was merged,

the  Senior  Computer  Officers  (Technical/Assistant

Manager (Systems), who had completed two years in

any capacity  in  any of  the divisions  were  taken into

20

consideration.   Respondent  No.  2  was  initially

appointed as an Assistant  Manager  (Systems)  in  the

erstwhile  grade 13/14 w.e.f.  August,  1985 and  later

appointed  as  Senior  Computer  Officer  (Tech.)  which

was also in the same department. The appellant herein

was  appointed  to  the  post  of  Assistant  Manager

(Systems) much later to the respondent no. 2 and only

on 5.9.1986. The attack is mounted only on the ground

that the respondent no. 2 belonged to different cadre,

namely  hardware  cadre  and  therefore,  he  was  not

eligible to be considered for promotion.   It is by virtue

of the agreement/settlement, Senior Computer Officers

(Technical/Assistant  Manager  (Systems)  who  had

completed two years in any division – be it hardware or

software,  were    considered  for  the  post  of  Deputy

Manager  (Maintenance/Systems)  and  a  common

seniority  list  was  prepared.   It  is  on  that  basis  the

Corporation has rightly considered the case of the 2nd

respondent  and  selected  him  to  the  post  of  Deputy

21

Manager  (Systems/Maintenance).   There  is  no

substantial  challenge  to  the  decision  of  merger  of

software and hardware cadres into one cadre having

the common seniority list as arbitrary or on the ground

of  mala  fide on  the  part  of  the  Corporation.   The

challenge is based on violation of the Recruitment and

Promotion  Rules  about  which  we  have  already  dealt

with in preceding paragraphs.  It needs no restatement

that  the  authorities  are  entitled  to  determine  all

conditions  of  service,  alteration  thereof  by amending

rules,  constitution,  classification,  abolition  of  posts,

cadres  or  categories  of  service,  amalgamation  or

bifurcation  of  departments,  reconstitution,

restructuring of the pattern etc. as the same pertain to

the field of policy within the exclusive jurisdiction of the

employer,  subject  to  limitations  or  restrictions

envisaged in the Constitution.  “There is no right in any

employee  to claim that rules governing conditions of

his service should be forever the same as the one when

22

he  entered  service  for  all  purposes  and  except  for

ensuring rights or benefits already earned, acquired or

accrued  at  a  particular  point  of  time,  a  government

servant has no right to challenge the authority of the

State to amend, alter  and bring into force new rules

relating  to   existing  service.”  (See:  P.U.  Joshi  Vs.

Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632].   The High

Court came to the right conclusion that the promotion

of  the  respondent  no.  2  as  Deputy  Manager

(Maintenance/Systems) is  not vitiated for any reason

whatsoever requiring interference.  

20. Now  we  shall  consider  the  question  whether

promotion of respondent no. 3 and 4 was valid?  

The selection of respondent no. 3 and 4 by a duly

constituted  Selection  Committee  was  made  on  the

basis of assessment of comparative merit, as per Rules

19  to  22  of  the  Recruitment  and  Promotion  Rules.

23

Rules 19 to 22 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules

are as follows:  

“19. The recommendations of the Promotion Committees  will  be  passed  on  to  the Competent  Authority  in  the  matter  of appointments as defined in  the ‘Instrument of  Delegation  of  certain  powers  and Functions I.A.’

20. Promotions  will  be  considered  on  the basis  of  suitability-cum-seniority  in  the grades or inter-linked grade below the grade for  which  promotions  are  being  considered subject  to  fitness  of  the  employee  being certified by the Sectional/Departmental Head for the employee in the following form:  

‘Certified  that  Shri  /Smt.  …………………. Designation …………………………. Grade …… …….. in view of his/her integrity/ability is  fit  to  be  considered  for promotion/selection to scale or pay……… ….’

21. No employee can claim promotion as a matter  of  right.  The  advancement  of  an employee  will  depend  as  much  on  his suitability as on his relative standing with the others eligible for promotion.  

22. Promotions  to  Selection  Grade  will  be on the basis  of  rigorous  selection  on merit from  amongst  the  employees  in  grades  or inter-linked  grades  below  the  grade concerned and shall be limited to the number of  posts  declared  as  such  on  the  cadre

24

according  to  the  sanctioned  strength  from time to time.”

21. The appointments to the post of Deputy Manager

(Maintenance/Systems)  in  the  present  case  were

obviously not made on the basis of direct recruitment

but the selection and appointment were made on the

basis  of  promotion.  The  list  of  candidates  called  for

selection was only of serving employees and no claim

of  any outsider  was considered.  It  is  evident  from a

bare reading of Rule 21, that no employee can claim

promotion as a matter of right.  It will depend on one’s

own  suitability  as  on  his  relative  standing  with  the

others eligible for promotion.   Rule 20, provides that

promotions  will  be  considered  on  the  basis  of

‘suitability-cum-seniority’ in the grades or inter-linked

grade below the grade for  which the promotions are

being  considered  subject  to  fitness  of  the  employee

being  certified  by  the  Head  of  the  Department.   A

combined  reading  of  Rules  20,  21  and  22  makes  it

25

abundantly  clear  that  suitability  of  a  candidate  for

promotion has to be compared with others eligible for

promotion. Promotion to selection grade is to  be on

the   basis  of  ‘selection  on  merit’  from amongst  the

employees in grades or inter-linked grades below the

grade concerned and shall be limited to the number of

posts declared as such on the cadre according to the

sanctioned  strength  from time  to  time.   Rule  22  is

specific in its terms.  It says, in case of ‘selection grade

posts’, the selection is a ‘rigorous selection on merit’.

22. It is not the case of the appellant that her

case  was  not  at  all  considered  for  promotion  to  the

post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems).  It is

clear from the record that the claim of the appellant for

promotion  was  duly  considered  along  with  other

eligible candidates including respondent nos. 3 and 4

who  were  ultimately  found  eligible  and  suitable  for

promotion.  The Selection Board having assessed the

26

ratings  of  each  of  the  previous  three  years’  annual

performance  appraisals  and  performance  of  the

appellant  in  the  interview found her  not  suitable  for

promotion.   The  respondent  nos.  3  and  4  had

outstanding  ratings  in  their  annual  performance

appraisals  and  were  found  suitable  by  the  Selection

Board.  We cannot sit in appeal over the assessment

made by the Selection Board and substitute our own

opinion for that of the Board.  In the result, we find the

decision to select and appoint respondent nos. 3 and 4

is not vitiated for any reason whatsoever.  

23. The  post  of  Deputy  Manager

(Maintenance/Systems) is a an upper managerial post,

which  in  terms  of  the  existing  Recruitment  and

Promotion  Rules,  could  be  filled  either  by  direct

recruitment or by promotion. If the vacancy was to be

filled up by way of promotion, promotion in such cases

obviously means promotion on the basis of suitability-

27

cum-seniority.  The process of selection on the basis of

suitability–cum-seniority  is  in  accordance  with  the

package of  Rules  referred  to  herein  above.  It  is  not

necessary  in  this  case  to  restate  and  reiterate  the

difference between promotion based on seniority-cum-

merit  and  merit-cum-seniority.   The  concept  is

different.  In case of  the former,  greater emphasis  is

laid  on  seniority,  though  it  is  not  the  determinative

factor,  while  in the latter,  merit  is  the determinative

factor. (See: K. Samantaray Vs. National Insurance

Co. Ltd. [ (2004) 9 SCC 286].

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.  

28

25. Yet another aspect remains to be dealt with.  The

appellant made an attempt to challenge the selection

procedure  in  which  50%  marks  were  reserved  for

interview and balance 50% marks on the evaluation of

the annual confidential reports. The High Court in this

regard rightly relied upon the decision in R.S. Parti Vs.

Indian Airlines Corporation & Ors. in W.P. (c) No.

3364/90 dated 31.8.1995  in which the Court took the

view that  post  of  Deputy  Manager  belongs  to  upper

managerial cadre and allocation of 50% marks for the

interview and  50% marks   on  the  evaluation  of  the

ACRs is not arbitrary.   In  R.S. Parti (supra) reliance

was placed upon the decision of this Court in  Indian

Airlines Corporation  Vs.  Capt. K.C. Shukla & Ors.

[(1993)  1  SCC  17],   in  which  the  post  of  Deputy

Operations Manager was in question and the method of

evaluation was the same as in the present case. In the

said case, this Court held as under:  

29

“Law on the proportion between written test and interview or evaluation on confidential entries and personality test have been laid down in a series of decisions  by  this  Court  commencing  from  Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi; Lila Dhar v. State of  Rajasthan;  Ashok  Kumar  Yadav v.  State  of Haryana and State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin. Distinction appears to have been drawn in interview held for competitive  examinations  or  admission  in educational  institutions  and  selection  for  higher posts. Effort has been made to eliminate scope of arbitrariness in the former by narrowing down the proportion as various factors are likely to creep in. But  same  standard  cannot  be  applied  for  higher selections.  Lila  Dhar  case brings  it  out  fully.  In respondent’s case the personality of the respondent was  being  judged  by  a  Committee  constituted under the rules for purposes of higher promotional posts and, therefore, it was governed by the ratio laid down in Lila Dhar case and it would be unsafe to  strike  down  the  rules  as  arbitrary  when  the evaluation was job oriented. Marks to be allotted by the  Committee  were  on  professional  ability  and management capacity.”  

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.  

30

26. Yet  another  aspect  of  the  matter:  That  the

appellant  admittedly  had  participated  in  the  similar

selection  process  for  erstwhile  grade  15  and  16,

Manager  (Maintenance/Systems)  and Senior  Manager

(Maintenance/Systems) respectively.  The Corporation

had  given  adequate  opportunity  to  the  appellant  to

compete  with  all  other  eligible  candidates  at  the

selection  for  consideration  of  the  case  of  all  eligible

candidates to the post in question.  The Corporation did

not  violate  the  right  to  equality  guaranteed  under

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.  The appellant

having participated in the selection process along with

the  contesting  respondents  without  any  demur  or

protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question

the very same process having failed to qualify for the

promotion.  In Madan Lal & Ors.  Vs.  State of J & K

& Ors.[ (1995) 3 SCC 486],  this Court observed: “It

is  now  well  settled  that  if  a  candidate   takes  a

calculated chance and appears at the interview, then,

31

only because the result of the interview is not palatable

to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend

that the process of interview was unfair: Therefore, the

result  of  the  interview  test  on  merits  cannot  be

successfully  challenged  by  a  candidate  who  takes  a

chance to get selected at the said interview and who

ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful.”  Reference

may  also  be  made  to  the  decision  of  this  Court  in

Chandra  Prakash  Tiwari  Vs.  Shakuntala  Shukla

[(2002) 6 SCC 127].  

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

32

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.  

……………………………………J.      (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

……………………………………J.      (B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi;  March 27, 2009

33