V.K.SOOD v. Secretary, Civil Aviation and Ors.

K.RAMASW AMY, J. Special leave granted. In response to the advertisement No. 33 dated August 19, 1989 the appellant had applied for recruitment to the post ofExaminerof Personnel in the Department of Civil Aviation. He was unsuccessful in the selection. He later on challenged paras 3(i) and 3(ii) of the advertisement on the ground that the qualifications prescribed are discriminatory and were tailormade. He also contends that in 1969, for the said post the qualifications prescribed were 1st Class British or Indian F Navigator or a British Flight Navigator licence with oot less than 100 hours of air experience. The method of recruitment was direct recruitment and the age prescribed was 45 years relaxable to Government Servants. He claims that he is having the first Class licence with 100 hours of air navigation experience. With a view to deprive himofthe change, the offending rules have been amended in 1978 G substituting 300 hours of instructional flying and experience of not less than 2500 hours as Flight Navigator with category A and endorsement to fly VIPs and VVIPs on all routes in I.A.F. air crafts or should hold or have held or Indian Flight Navigator Licence. According to him this rule was made with a view to deprive him of his chance. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily. To appreciate the contention, it is necessary to read to rules. As per the 1969 rules H A which are statutory made under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. the method of recruitment with qualification prescribed thereafter are thus: "Essential (i) First Class British or Indian Navigators· Licence with not less than 100 hours air experience. Desirable (i) Degree in Mathematics or in Engineering. (ii) Experience of Goedetic Surveying. _In 1978 clause A was amended and in its place Clause.s A(i) and (ii) were brought on the rules which reads thus : "A(i) Experience of a minimu·m of 300 hours of instructional flying as qualified Navigation Instructor. (ii) Experience of not less than 2500 hours as Flight Navigator with category "A" and endorsement to fly VIPsNVIPs on all routes in I.A.F. aircrafts. · OR "B" (i) Should hold or have held an indian Flight Navigators' licence. (ii) Experience of 2000 hours as Flight Navigator on international Routes. Desirable (i) Degree in Science with Physics and Mathematics as subject of recognised ~illersity or equivalent. (ii) Experience as Navigation Instructor in a recognised Institution or in an Air Corporation. (iii) Commercial Pilot's licence. Method of recruitment is direct recruitment through the Union Public Service _ .. V.K. SOOD v. SECRETARY, CIVIL AVIATION [K. RAMASWAMY. J] 775 Commission. When the candidates in required number did not apply for, the rules A have been further amended in 1989 with the following modified qualifications : Essential I. 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics 2(i) should have held a senior Commercial Pilot's Licence. (ii) should have flying experience of not kss than 2500 hours on multiengine aircraft of which not less than 250 hours should be as pilot-in-command. OR (i) shouJd !'told or should have held an Indian Flight Navigator's licence~-. · · (ii) should have not less than 500 hours experience as Flight D Navigator. Desirable 1. Degree in Science with Physics and Mathematics of a recognised University or its equivalent. 2. Experience as Navigation Instructor in a recognised institute/ Flying Club or in an Airline. Me1hod of recruitmenr-by direct recruitment failing which by transfer or depu- F tation (including short term contract). Age : 50 years. It is not in dispute that these rules have been made by the President exercising the power under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution which read thus : G "309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State-Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R. Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State to make rules regulaLing the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such service and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this Article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act." C It would thus clear that the rules made by the President or authorised person under proviso to Art. 309 are subject to any law made by the Parliament and the power includes rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service or post. They are statutory and legislative in character. The statutory rules thus made are subject to the law that may be made by the Parliament. In B.S Vadera v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 118, this Court held that the rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Act i.e. if the appropriate legislature has passed an Act, In its absence the rules made by the president or by such person as he may direct are to have full effect. In The General Manager, So11thern Railway v. Rangaclzari reported in [1962] 2 SCR 586 at 596 another Constitution Bench held that equality of opportunity need not be confused with absolute equality as such. What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity and nothing more. Article 16(1) or 16(2) F does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for selection to any employ­ ment or appointment to any office or post. Any provision as to the qualifications for the employment or appointment to an 1)ffice or post reasonably fixed and applicable to all citizens would certainly he consistent with the doctrine of the equality of opportunity. In State of Mysorl' & Anr. v. P. Narasing Rao report in [1968] 1 SCR 407 at 41 l this Court hid that the provisions of Art. 14 or Art. 16 do not exclude the laying down of selectin: tests, nor do they preclude the Govern­ ment from laying down quali fl~at i1 ins for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical hut they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for such service as such. The same was the view in anotherConstitution·Bench decision reported in The State of Jamm11 and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1. In State of Orissa & Anr. v. N.N. Swamy & Ors. reported in [1977] 2 SCC 508 in paragraph 18, this Court held that - - -- V .K. SOOD v. SECRETARY. CIVIL AVIATION [K. RAMASWAMY. J] 7T/ the eligibility must not be confused with the suitability of the candidate for A appointment. Thus it would be clear that, in the exercise of the rule making power, the President or authnrised person is entitled to prescribe method of recruitment, qualifications t"toth educational as well as technical for appointment or conditions of ser\'ice to an office or a post under the State. The rules thus having been made in exercise of the power under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that the authorities have prescribed tailormade qualifications to suit the stated individuals whose names have been mentioned in the appeal. Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. The rules prescribed qualifica- C lions forcligibilily and the suitability of the appellant would be tested by the Union Public Service Commission. It is next contended that several persons whose names have been copiously mentioned in the appeal were not qualified to hold the post of examiner and they 0 were not capable even to set the test papers to the examinees nor capable lo evaluate the papers. We are not called upon to decide the legality of their appointments nor thefr credentials in this appeal as that question does not arise nor arc they before the court. It is next contended by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, the learned Senior counsel that on account of inefficiency in the pilots' operational capability repeatedly air accidl.!nts have been occurring endangering the Jives of E innocent travellers and this Court shoutcl regulate the prescription of higher qualifications and strict standards to the navigators or to the pilots be instead on. We arc afraid that we cannot enter into nor undertake the responsibility in that behalf. It is for the expert body and this Court does not have the assistance of ex.perts. MoreoYer it is for the rule making authority or for th\! Legislature to regulate the method of recruitment, prescribe qualifications etc. It is open to the President or the authorised person to undertake such exercise and that necessary tests should be conducted by U.P.S.C. before giving the certificates to them. This 1• is not the province of this Court to trench into and prescribl.! qualifications in particular when the matters are of the technical nature. It is stated in the counter aflicla\'it that due to advancement of technology of the !light aviations the G navigators arc no llJnger required and therefore they are not coming in large number. Despite the repeated advertisements no suitahle candidate is coming forward. W c do not go into that aspect also and it is not necessary for the purpose of this case. Suffice to state that pursuant to another ad\'ertisement made in July 1992, the appellant is stated to have admittedly applied for and appeared before the 778 SUPREME COL'RT REPORTS [1993) l S.C.R. .A U.P.S.C. for selection and that he is a\vaiting. the result thereof. Under these circumstances. we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cOsts. U.R. Appeal dismissed. ,· - -··