Holding

The Recruitment and Promotion Rules are not statutory; they are administrative guidelines that can be amended by the management‑officers' settlement, making the cadre merger and the promotions lawful.

Summary

K.A. Nagamani, a former programmer and Assistant Manager (Systems) with Indian Airlines, challenged the promotion of three colleagues to Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) and the merger of hardware and software cadres, arguing that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were statutory and could not be overridden by an agreement between management and the Officers' Association. The Supreme Court examined whether those rules were statutory or merely administrative guidelines and held that they are not statutory, being subject to amendment by the settlement. The Court further found that the agreement effectively amended the rules and that the merger of the two cadres was valid. It affirmed that the promotions were based on merit and suitability, not merely seniority, and that the selection process complied with the applicable rules. Consequently, the appellant's challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was dismissed and the appeal was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Indian Airlines are statutory in nature or mere administrative instructions.
Whether an agreement/settlement between management and the Officers' Association can amend those rules.
Whether the merger of hardware and software cadres into a single cadre is valid.
Whether the promotions of the respondents complied with the rules on merit, seniority, and selection procedures.
Whether the appellant's challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is maintainable.

Legislation cited

Air Corporations Act, 1953s. 4, s. 44, s. 45, s. 8

Subjects

service lawrecruitment rulespromotionstatutory vs administrativecadre mergerArticle 14Article 16Indian Airlinessenioritymerit

Judgment

[2009) 5 S.C.R. 89

·\
K.A. NAGAMANI A
v.
INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5314 of 2007)
MARCH 27, 2009
B
'•
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN
REDDY, JJ.]

Service Law:
c
Promotion - Recruitment & Promotion Rules - Whether
statutory in nature or mere administrative instructions -
Agreement/settlement arrived at between the Management
and its officers' Association - Whether has the effect of
protanto amending the Recruitment and Promotion Rules - D
'.i Held: Mere description of rules of Administrative practice as
'rules' does not make them statutory Rules - The agreement!
settlement are complimentary to each other and have to be
read together - Also it has-the effect of protanto amending
the Recruitment and Promotion Rules - The Air Corporations
E
Act, 1953 - Indian Airlines Corporation Employees Service
Regulations, 1955 - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16.

In this appeal against High Court's judgment, the
" issue that arose for consideration was whether the
Recruitment & Promotion Rules in the Indian Airlines are F
statutory in nature of mere administrative instructions.

The appellant contended that promotion to the post
of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) could not
have been made based on the terms of the settlement G
between Indian Airlines and its Officers' Association
,.., contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
.J
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

89 H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1.1. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules
were framed in e'xercise of the powers conferred under
the Regulatiom;. There is no power vested in the
Corporation to make any rules since Section 44 of the Air
Corporations Act, 1953 confers power to make rules only
B in the Central Government and not in the Corporation. The
Corporation is enititled to make only regulations which it
did and published by way of Notification dated 6th April,
1955. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules are not even
notified in the Gazette as it is not required whereas the
c service Regulatio1ns referred to herein above have been
gazetted. The Indian Airlines Corporation Employees
Service Regulatio1ns, 1955 which are made in exercise of
the powers conforred upon the Corporation by the Air
Corporations Act are undoubtedly statutory in nature but
the Recruitment •and Promotion Rules are not statutory
0
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 pe>licy and the practice of government
E departments, statutory authorities, whether published or
otherwise. Statu1tory rules, which are made under the
provisions of any enactment and regulations, subject to
Parliamentary approval stand on entirely different footing.
The administrativ1e rules are always considered and have
repeatedly been held to be rules of administrative practice
F merely, not rules 1of law and not delegated legislation and
they have no statutory force. Mere description of such
n,iles 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
G \tithout following any particular procedure. There are no
legal restrictions to do so as long as they do not offend
the provisions of lthe Constitution or statutes or statutory
rules as the case may be. (Para 12] (100-C-H; 101-A]

H
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 91
·•
•
1.2. In the present case the agreement/settlement A
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. [Para 13) [101-8) B
"
Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh
Raghuvanshi AIR 1975 SC 1331; B.K. Srinivasan vs. State
of Kamataka AIR 1987 SC 1059 and lnder Pradash Gupta
vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 786,
relied on. c
2. It cannot be said 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 D
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 E
statutory instrument. Once it is to be held that the
Recruitment and Promotion 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. The appellant did not F
y
question the merger of cadres in the 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 that the merger
G
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
this Court cannot entertain any such plea at this stage
without there being any pleadings in that regard in the
H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

A writ petition filed in the High Court. [Para 17] [102-C-G]
..
3.1. 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
8 _...
of Deputy Manager 1[Maintenance/Systems) and a
common seniority list was prepared. It is on that basis the
Corporation has rightl)f considered the case of the 2nd
respondent and selected him to the post of Deputy
Manager (Systems/Maintenance). There is no substantial
C 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 ma/a fide on
the part of the Corporation. The challenge is based on
violation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It
D 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 catenories of service, amalgamation or
bifurcation of departments, reconstitution, restructuring
E of the pattern etc. a~; the same pertain to the field of
policy within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employer,
subject to limitations or restrictions envisaged in the
Constitution. [Para 1S1] [103-F-H; 104-A-C]

F 3.2. In the instan1t case, 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.
[Para 19]

G P. U. Joshi vs. Accountant General (2003) 2 SCC 632,
relied on.

4. It is not the case of the appellant that her case was
not at all considered for promotion to the post of Deputy
H Manager (Maintenance/Systems). It is clear from the
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 93
\'

record that the claim of the appellant for promotion was A
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 ratings of each of the
previous three years' annual performance appraisals and B
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. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the c
assessment made by the Selection Board and substitute
its own opinion for that of the Board. Thus, the decision
to select and appoint respondent nos. 3 and 4 is not
vitiated for any reason whatsoever. [Para 22] [106-D-F]
_I,
5. This Court concurs with the view taken by the High D
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. [Para 24] [107-
C] E

K. Samantaray Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 9
sec 286, referred to.
)"
6. The post of Deputy Manager belongs to upper
managerial cadre and allocation of 50% marks for the F
interview and 50% marks on the evaluation of the ACRs
is not arbitrary. [Para 25] [107 -E]
Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Capt. K.C. Shukla & Ors.
(1993) 1 sec 17, referred to. G
... 7. The Corporation had given adequate opportunity
-i
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 H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
i'

A guaranteed under Artich!s 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
B for the promotion. [108-F-G]
Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC
486 and Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakuntala Shukla
(2002) 6 sec 127, referred to.
c Casi! Law Reference:
AIR 1975 SC 1331 relied on Para 14
AIR 1987 SC 1059 relied on Para 14

D (2004) 6 sec 786 relied on Para 14
(2003) 2 sec 632 relied on Para 19
(2004) 9 sec 286 referred to Para 23
(1993) 1 sec 11 referred to Para 25
E
(1995) 3 sec 486 referred to Para 26
(20021 6 sec 121 referred to Para 26

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 5314 of 2007. .,
From the Judgement & Order dated 26.5.2006 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA (C) No. 1009 of 2004.

Petitioner in-person.
G
P.S. Narasimha, Lalit Bhasin, Nina Gupta, Swingin
George, Tulika Mukherjee and Bina Gupta for the Responents. i-

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. This appeal has been
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 95
\
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi A
passed in LPA (C) No. 1069 of 2004 affirming the judgment of
the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2338of1991.

2. Brief facts needed for disposal of this appeal are as
. under:
B
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 c
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 D
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 common seniority list
dated 24.9.1990 had been drawn for the purpose of
promotions. E
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 F
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 G
~·.
petition filed by her was dismissed and confirmed in Letters
-1 Patent Appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court.
5. The High Court inter a/ia held that promotion to the post
of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) is to be on the H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
J

A 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
B found that his promotion had been upheld by the court in Civil .
Writ Petition No. 3647/921 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
c 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 Computer
D Officers in EDP Departmi:mt 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
E 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
F department, employ13es 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 be,en shown in the annexed schedule but
G have been shown separately on seniority lists. The submission
was: two separate cadres could not have 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
H contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules which govern
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 97
.
,, [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.].

the promotions of the officers from the lower post to the higher A
post. It was submitted that the Recruitment and Promotion
Rules are statutory in nature and binding upon the Management.
The agreemenUsettlement is contrary to the Recruitment and
Promotion Rules.
;>
B
7. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the first respondent ably supported the jwdgment
under appeal and submitted that the impugned judgment does
not suffer from any errors requiring interference of this court.

8. Be it noted, the appellant did not make any challenge c
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 D
' _\.-

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 E
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 the non-appearance F
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?
G
~.
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 H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.

1
A Engineering Department) S13rvice 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 ~1enerally to make further and better
B provisions for the 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
c 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
D
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
E
provide for all or any of the matters, namely: the terms and
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
F in the official gazette. Every rule made under Section 44, shall 'y

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 subj13ct to the rules made by the
G 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 1"'-
~

and for carrying out its functions; the regulations inter a/ia may
provide for the terms and conditions of service of officers and
H other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 99
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
'J,:
Director and officers of any other categories referred to in A
Section 44. The regulations 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
B
).
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.
c
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:- D
_)-

(a) The Indian Airlines Corporation (Flying Crew) Service
Rules;

(b) The Indian Airlines Corporation (Aircraft Engineering
E
Department) Service Rules;

(c) The Indian Airlines Corporation (Employees other than
Flying Crew and Aircraft Engineering Department) Service
Rules.
F
y 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, G
without previous notice of their intention, and the right to give
~,
effect thereto immediately from the tim~ or date of issue. Rule
_j
8 provides for appointments to various posts to be made by
promotion or direct recruitment in accordance with such
conditions as the Corporation may determine from time to
H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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 and Promotion
D 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
E 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
F government departme·nts, 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
G repeatedly been held to be rules of administrative practice
merely, not rules of law and not delegated legislation and they
have no statutory force. Mere description of such rules of
administrative practice a:s "rules" does not make them to be
statutory rules. Such administrative rules can be modified,
H amended or consolidated by the authorities without following
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 101
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
l
any particular procedure. There are no legal restrictions to do A
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 agreemenUsettlement arrived
at between the Management and its Officers' Association has
B
" 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. c
Srinivasan Versus State of Kamataka [AIR 1987 SC 1059]
and /nder Pradash Gupta Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir &
Ors. ((2004) 6sec 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 D
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 E
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
7 Court and as well as the learned Single judge in coming to the F
conclusion that the Recruitment 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? G
,., 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
H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
J
A 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
B personnel are available. Later, pursuant to a further request by
the Officers' 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
C 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
D 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
E merger of software and hardware cadres into one cadre. Be it
noted, the appellant did not question the merger of cadres in
the 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
F 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
G 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
H
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 103
t [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

the promotion of 2nd respondent as noted herein above was A
subject matter of the writ petition filed by Joydev Chakraborlhy
in 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 8
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?
c
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 D
(Technical/Assistant Manager (Systems), who had completed
two years in any capacity in any of the divisions were taken into
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 E
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
y respondent no. 2 belonged to different cadre, namely hardware F
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
G
(Maintenance/Systems) and a common seniority list was
h
../'.
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 Manager (Systems/Maintenance). There
is no substantial challenge to the decision of merger of software
H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

:;
A and hardware cadres into one cadre having the common
seniority list as arbitrary or on the ground of ma/a 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
B 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
c 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 he entered service
for all purposes and except for ensuring rights or benefits
D
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
E 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
F 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. Rules 19 to 22 of the
G
Recruitment and Promotion Rules are as follows:

"19. The recommendations of the Promotion Committees r"
:...
will be passed on to the Competent Authority in the matter
of appointments as defined in the 'Instrument of Delegation
H of certain powers and Functions I.A.'
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 105
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

20. Promotions will be considered on the basis of A
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: B

'Certified that Shri /Smt. ..................... .
Designation ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . Grade
.............. in view of his/her integrity/ability is fit to
be considered for promotion/selection to scale or C
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. D

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 E
declared as such on the cadre 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 F
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 oan claim
promotion as a matter of right. It will depend on one's own G
suitability as on his relative standing with the others eligible for
._ promotion. Rule 20, provides that promotions will be considered
-I 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 H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
,.~

A certified by the Head of the Department. A combined reading
of Rules 20, 21 and 22'. makes it 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
B 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
c 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
D 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 ratings
of each of the previous three years' annual performance
appraisals and performance of the appellant in the interview
E 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
F 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
G
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-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.
H
/

K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 107
~- [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

It is not necessary in this case to restate and reiterate the A
''
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 B
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.
c

.. 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 D
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 E
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 &
- y Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 17], in which the post of Deputy Operations
F
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:

"Law on the proportion between written test and interview
or evaluation on confidential entries and personality test G
~-
-!.
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 H
108 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B higher selections. Ula 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 Ula Dhar case
and it would be unsafe to strike down the rules as arbitrary
c when the evaluation wa1s job oriented. Marks to be allotted
by the Committee were on professional ability and
management capacity."
,.
This authoritative pronouncement of this Court, in our
D considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy raised
by the appellant. It is not necessary to dilate any further on the
subject.

26. Yet another aspect of the matter: That the appellant
E admittedly had participated in the similar selection process for
erstwhile grade 15 and 16, Manager (Maintenance/Systems)
and Senior Manager (Mainte~nance/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
'1. -
F 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
G 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, only because the result of the interview is not
H
K.A. NAGAMANI v. INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. 109
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
~·
palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently A
'· 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 B
"' this Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakunta/a Shukla
[(2002) 6 sec 1211.

27. No other point arises for consideration.

However, before parting with the case, we must make it c
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 authorities in her written submissions. On consideration, we
find many of them are not relevant for the purposes of disposal D
~
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 E
appreciate the manner in which the appellant presented her
case before us.

29. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order
as to costs.
y F
G.N. Appeal dismissed.