SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Air India Engineering Services Limited & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 5286/2020
Decided On : 18-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Shankar Prasad, Mr. Sameer Kumar, Mr. Shah Rukh Ahmad & Mr. Mandeep Baisala, Advocates, for the Petitioners; Mr. A.P. Singh, Ms. Akanksha Das and Mr. Shreyansh Rathi, Advocates, for the Respondents

Headnote:

AIRCRAFT ENGINEER - EMPLOYMENT NOTICE, APPOINTMENT LETTER, CAR-66, CAR-145 - The court discussed the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934, Aircraft Rules, 1937, and the Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) issued by the DGCA. The court highlighted the binding nature of CARs and their applicability to the case, ultimately dismissing the petition due to the lack of evidence of discrimination or violation of rights.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a trade union and an association, sought a writ to direct the respondents to appoint selected candidates to the post of Aircraft Engineer as per the Staff Employment Notice and Appointment Letter. The respondents amended the appointment terms due to changes in licensing requirements under CAR-66 and maintenance requirements under CAR-145.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition, stating that the technical nature of the appointment criteria could not be weighed in a writ jurisdiction. The petitioners failed to specify the exact criteria for appointment and did not demonstrate discrimination or rights violation.

Issues: The court considered the applicability of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) to the case and the lack of evidence of discrimination or rights violation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding nature of CARs and the lack of evidence to support the petitioners' claims of discrimination or rights violation.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that there were no cogent reasons to entertain the petition and allow the prayers sought therein.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the Respondents to implement and enforce the 'Staff Employment Notice', dated 08.12.2015 and Appointment Letter dated 06.03.2017 to the extent it offered to the eligible/selected candidates appointing them to the post of 'Aircraft Engineer', in the pay scale of Rs. 24,900-50,500 in E-3 Grade, with protection of pay, on acquiring the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (hereinafter referred to as the 'DGCA') license in the respective categories with all consequential benefits from the respective date of completing the one-year training and acquiring the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (hereinafter referred to as the 'AME') License by the candidates.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The matter has arisen out of the facts as detailed hereunder:

a. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Trade Union under the Trade Union Act of 1926 in Hyderabad and Petitioner no. 2 is a registered association at Mumbai. The Petitioners Association represent the licensed/Approved AMEs employed with the Respondent No. 1, a subsidiary of Respondent No. 2.

b. On 08.12.2015, Respondent No. 1 issued the Staff Employment Notice Ref: AIESL/COP/287 inviting applications from serving permanent employees of Air India Engineering Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'AIESL') for the post of AME.

c. As per the qualifications prescribed therein, it was a pre-requisite for the candidates to have a DGCA issued Basic Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's License (hereinafter referred to as the 'BAMEL'). As such, the members of the Petitioner Associations applied for the recruitment as they were already holding BAMEL.

d. The Respondent No. 1 published the Results whereby the members of the Petitioner-Associations were selected. On 6.3.2017, the selected candidates were issued an Appointment letter appointing them as Trainee Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

e. On 11.7.2017, in view of the revision in the licensing policy by the DGCA, the Respondent No. 1 circulated a letter amending the terms of appointment, whereby the candidates were required to undergo necessary training courses in order to obtain Limited Scope Approval (hereinafter referred to as the 'LSA').

f. On 02.11.2018, the Respondent No.1 published a list of Trainee AMEs who had successfully completed the necessary training. The Respondent No.1 appointed them in E-2 grade as Deputy Aircraft Engineer instead of appointing them as AME in E-3 grade.

g. Aggrieved by the said action of the Respondent No. 1, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsels for the parties have raised their contentions and submissions in writing as well as through oral submissions during the proceedings. In response to the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No. 1 and rejoinder thereto has been filed by the Petitioners. Written Submissions have also been filed by the respective parties. The entirety of the pleadings on the record have been perused and the submissions made therein by the parties are detailed hereunder:

Petitioners' Submissions

4. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that on successful completion of training imparted by the Respondent No. 1 as mentioned in the 'Staff Employment Notice' dated 08.12.2015, the successful candidates were placed in E-2 grade as Dy. Aircraft Engineer. It is submitted that after the completion of mandatory one year training and having acquired DGCA license as mentioned in the initial 'Staff Employment Notice' dated 08.12.2015, the concerned employees sought appointment to E-3 Grade, to the post of Aircraft Engineer through Petitioners' Association.

5. It is submitted that, however, even after regular correspondence with the Respondents, no reply was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top