- (1.) Indian Airlines is aggrieved by the order of the Delhi High court passed in exercise of its writ jurisdiction quashing the order dated 10/04/1990, promoting respondents 2 to 25 as illegal and in the alternative directing the Corporation to promote the appellant to the post of Deputy Operations Manager with effect from the date the other respondents were promoted and grant all consequential benefits. Reasons for such directions were both legal and factual. It was found that the post of Deputy Operations Manager was mere redesignation of the earlier post of Chief Pilot therefore the respondent was entitled to claim promotion on his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and entire procedure of selection on ACR and interview was contrary to rules. Selection was found to be vitiated as the committee was not constituted in accordance with rules and regulations. Method of evaluation based 50 per cent on ACR and 50 per cent on interview, when the field of eligibility comprised officers immediately below, was held to be arbitrary as such wide gap between ACR evaluation and personality test was liable to reduce entire selection process to a farce leaving ample scope for pick and choose. On facts it was found that since there was overwriting in marks awarded to some of the candidates the Board did not appear to have acted fairly. It was further found that an officer who secured high percentage on ACR could not be imagined to have secured so low marks in personality test as was indicated to have been awarded to the respondent in the test sheet
(2.) Whether the decision of the High court is well founded on various aspects shall be examined presently but the alternative reliefgranted by the High court probably in an anxiety to be fair and just to those others who had been selected by reducing the interview percentage to 12.5 per cent then working out proportionally the marks obtained by respondent on ACR evaluation and interview and directing to promote him as by this method he would secure the minimum required cannot be accepted as proper exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. Adjusting equities in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is one thing but assuming the role of selection committee is another. The court cannot substitute its opinion and devise its own method of evaluating 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. For instance a candidate denied selection because of certain entries in his character roll which either could not be taken into account or had been illegally considered because they had been expunged the court would be within jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. But it would be going too far if the court itself evaluates fitness or otherwise of a candidate, as in this case.
(3.) 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. Further the Corporation has amended the rules and narrowed it down in 1991 by reducing the interview marks to 40 per cent only. Moreover after examining the record, which was examined by the High court, as well, it appears the Committee was neither guilty ofarbitrariness nor it violated any rule or regulation in allotting the marks which of course were very low in interview.;