Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

534
by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel that on account of inefficiency in
the Pilots’ Operational Capability repeatedly air accidents have been occurring endangering
the lives of innocent travellers and this Court should regulate the prescription of higher
qualifications and strict standards to the Navigators or to the Pilots be insisted on. We
are 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 experts. Moreover, it is
for the rule-making authority or for the Legislature to regulate the method of recruitment,
prescribed qualifications etc. It is open to the President or the Authorized person to
undertake such exercise and that necessary tests should be conducted by UPSC before
giving the certificates to them. This is not the province of the court to trench into and
prescribe qualifications in particular when the matters are of the technical nature. It is
stated in the Counter-Affidavit that due to advancement of Technology of Flight Aviations
the Navigators are no longer required and, therefore, they are not coming in large number.
Despite the repeated advertisements no suitable candidate is coming forward. We 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 advertisement made in July, 1992, the Appellant is stated to
have admittedly applied for and appeared before the UPSC for selection and that he is
awaiting the result thereof. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substance in
this Appeal. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
12.2Merely because some service was prescribed in the earlier Notification the same qualification
need not be followed in the subsequent Notification. It is permissible for the Policy Makers to change
their policy. Change of policy also is within the domain of the Policy makers and it need not be
justified. These matters are outside the province of the court and while Administrator is better qualified
to decide these matters, courts have proved to be wrong. Courts cannot annul or change the policy
because earlier policy was better and was suited for prevailing conditions. It is only with a view to give
incentive to in-service candidates, the service or maximum age has not been prescribed in their case.
In support of this proposition, he referred to the following decisions of the Supreme Court:
(1) AIR 2002 SC 350 - BALCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION (R) V. UNION OF INDIA:
(paras 44 to 46)
(2) 2007 (8) SCC 418 - DHAMPUR SUGAR {KASHIPUR} LIMITED v. STATE OF
UTTARCHAL AND OTHERS:
(3) AIR 1980 SC 379 - TAMIL NADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT MINISTERIAL
& GENERAL SUBORDINATE SERVICES ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF TAMIL
NADU:
Karnataka PSC