9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the promotion order quashed by the Delhi High Court. 2. Legality of the alternative relief granted by the High Court. 3. Evaluation criteria for selection process based on Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and interviews. 4. Nature of the post being selective or promotional. 5. Constitution of the Committee for evaluation. 6. Allegations of unfairness in the evaluation process. 7. Decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court reviewed the Delhi High Court's decision quashing the promotion order of respondent Nos. 2 to 25 and directing the promotion of the appellant to the post of Dy. Operations Manager. The Court found that the promotion was deemed illegal due to flaws in the selection process, such as improper evaluation based on ACRs and interviews. The selection committee's constitution did not comply with rules, and the method of evaluation was considered arbitrary, leading to unfairness in the selection process. 2. The Court examined the alternative relief granted by the High Court but concluded that the Court overstepped its jurisdiction by altering the selection criteria. While adjusting equities is permissible, the Court cannot substitute its evaluation method for the selection committee's. The judgment emphasized that the Court's role is to ensure compliance with the law, not to interfere with the selection process. 3. The Court referenced previous decisions to establish the legal framework for evaluating candidates based on ACRs and interviews. Distinctions were made between competitive examinations and selections for higher posts, emphasizing job-oriented evaluations for higher positions. The judgment highlighted the importance of professional ability and management capacity in the evaluation process. 4. The Court addressed the nature of the post in question, clarifying the hierarchy and duties associated with the Deputy Operations Manager position. It analyzed the historical evolution of the post from Chief Pilot to Deputy Operations Manager and emphasized that the selection process was governed by valid Promotion and Recruitment Rules, limiting eligibility to Commander Pilots. 5. The Court dismissed the High Court's finding that the Committee was illegally constituted, citing the General Manager's power to constitute a Board as per Rule 10. The Court found no irregularities in the Committee's formation, affirming the validity of its composition. 6. Allegations of unfairness in the evaluation process, particularly regarding over-writing in marks, were refuted by the Court. After reviewing the records, the Court found no evidence of arbitrariness or bias in the evaluation process. The marks allotted to the respondent were deemed fair and unbiased by the Court. 7. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition. The Court held that the High Court's decision was overturned, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
