V KASHYAP Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The two appellants were appointed as Deputy Director (Finance) on promotion vide notification No. 14 of 1991 issued by respondent No. 1, Indian Airlines. The validity of the same came to be challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi by one Sushma Chawla (respondent No. 4 herein) on the ground that while promoting the appellants as aforesaid the relevant guidelines holding the field were not adhered to and as such their promotions were not in accordance with law. The High Court accepted the contention of the writ petitioner and set aside the promotion of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved, this Court has been approached under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(3.) The short point which needs determination is whether there was violation of the guidelines, the applicability of which has not been questioned before us. The requirement of the guidelines which is said to have been violated is that in judging the suitability of the persons within the zone of consideration last three Years "Annual Performance Appraisal" (APR)would be considered. It is an admitted position that while considering the case of the appellants APRs of the immediately preceding three years had not been taken into consideration; what had instead been done was to take into consideration three years' immediately preceding available APRs. According to the High Court this was not permissible, because that would amount to adding the word "available" in the guidelines, which is not permissible.