ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 18.12.1999 issued by the respondent No. 3 asking the respondent No. 4 to direct the petitioner to appear for a test at the Corporate Office of Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi and further for a direction upon the respondents to assign flying duty to the petitioner and to avail of his services in proportion with the other Pilots including respondent No. 5.
2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-SAIL as pilot officer. The petitioner was duly granted a commercial pilot licence for flying the Aircraft. The petitioner’s case is that in order to retain a commercial pilot licence a person has to fly
a minimum of 40 hours every year to obtain the validity and renewal of his licence. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he is the regular employee of SAIL but he has not been permitted to fly the aircraft of SAIL and on the other hand, they are engaging another person to fly the aircraft. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents to assign him duty in order to retain the licence but instead of assigning duty the petitioner was asked by the respondent No. 3 to appear in a written test.
3. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the validity of the period of licence of the petitioner expired on 27.5.2000 and he once again appeared in the requisite test for renewal of his commercial pilot licence and after the petitioner qualified, the licence was renewed till 18.6.2002.
4. The respondents’ case is that they were repairing their aircraft which is stationed at Ranchi being a BEECH CRAFT TWIN BONANZA, which was to be flown by the petitioner. It was stated that the respondents have turbo prop type of Super King B-200 aircraft at Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. The petitioner does not have flying skills on the said Super King B-200 aircraft at Bokaro. The petitioner made representation for posting at Bokaro and as such, considering the background and type of flying experience of the petitioner it was decided to subject him to a written/oral test in operational applications and technical aspects to assess his, suitability and the related requirements to fly such aircraft. It is stated that unless the petitioner is found to be competent and having assessed flying skills on Super King B-200 aircraft and having obtained endorsement in his licence from the competent authority for flying such aircraft, he cannot be assigned flying duty in proportion with the other pilot of the respondents.
5. Mr. Dilip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the very out-set, submitted that the very first prayer challenging the authority of the respondent-SAIL to hold examination has become infructuous because the date of the said examination is over. The petitioner, therefore, confines this writ application only to the extent of passing appropriate order and direction upon the respondents to assign flying duty to the
petitioner. Mr. Jerath submitted that the licence of the petitioner is valid upto June. 2002 and in order to retain the licence a person has to fly a minimum 40 hours in a year. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondents in not assigning flying duty to the petitioner is wholly illegal and mala fide.
6. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner does not have flying skills of Super King B-200 aircraft. The petitioner had made several representations for his posting at Bokaro and on considering the background and the type of flying stands of the petitioner it was decided to subject him to a written/oral test in operational applications and technical aspect to assess his suitability. Learned counsel submitted that unless and until the petitioner is found competent and having assessed flying skills of Super King B-200 aircraft and having obtained endorsement in his licence from the competent authority for flying such aircraft, he cannot be assigned flying duty.
7. At the very out-set. I am of the view that neither this Court nor the respondent-SAIL is the competent authority to assess and decide whether the petitioner is competent to fly the Super King-B-200 aircraft and is having all flying skills in operational applications and technical aspects. It is the respondent No. 6, the Director General of Civil Aviation, who is the competent authority to grant commercial pilot licence and also to decide whether a pilot is competent to fly the Super King B-200 aircraft. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted a commercial pilot licence which was valid upto 27.5.2000. It appears that the commercial pilot licence was renewed by the respondent No. 6 for a period till 12.7.2002. It further appears that by letter dated 4th September, 1997 issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi, the petitioner was permitted to fly King Air C-90-F Aircraft. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion, it is the Director General of Civil Aviation, who grants such permission after examining the suitability of the petitioner to fly Super King B-200 aircraft. The action of the respondent-SAIL directing the petitioner to appear before them for written/oral test was not justified. The respondent-SAIL has taken a stand that there is no endorsement in the licence of
the petitioner to fly Super King B-200 aircraft.
In other words, if the respondent No. 6, after
examining the case of the petitioner, give a
competency certificate and permit the
petitioner to fly Super King B-200 aircraft
then the respondent-SAIL will have no option
but to assign duty to the petitioner.
8. For all these reasons, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the petitioner to make an application to the Director General Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi for issuing necessary competency certificate and permit him to fly Super King B-200 aircraft. The respondent No. 6. Director General Civil Aviation, shall consider the application and after completing necessary formalities take a decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner. It is needless to say that if the Director Civil Aviation grants a competency certificate in favour of the petitioner to fly Super King B-200 aircraft then respondent-SAIL shall pass appropriate order assigning flying duty to the petitioner in accordance with law.
9. Writ Application disposed of with direction.