IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Ankita Meena - Appellant
Versus
Airport Authority of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 677 of 2024
Decided On : 23-01-2024
Reservation - Senior Assistant (Electronics) - Circular dated 17.06.2021, Right to Information Act, 2005, Anil Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2000) 1 SCC 128, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another vs. Ankit Kumar Das (2021) 12 SCC 18 - The court discussed the reservation of posts for ST candidates, the petitioner's qualifications, misrepresentation, and work experience. It highlighted the importance of challenging issues at the initial stage, the impact of misrepresentation on eligibility, and the relevance of specific clarifications in previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the reservation of only 1 out of 32 posts for ST candidates for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) and the refusal to consider her candidature based on her qualifications and experience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner misrepresented her qualifications and work experience, failed to challenge the reservation issue at the initial stage, and participated in the selection process before challenging the advertisement, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: Reservation for ST candidates, misrepresentation of qualifications and work experience, challenge of issues at the initial stage, and participation in the selection process before challenging the advertisement.
Ratio Decidendi: The importance of challenging issues at the initial stage, the impact of misrepresentation on eligibility, and the relevance of specific clarifications in previous judgments.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 3024/2024
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 677/2024 & CM APPL. 3023/2024 (Interim Relief)
3. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking following reliefs:
"(a) Declare that the action of Respondent No.1 in reserving only 1 out of 32 posts for ST candidates for recruitment for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) against advertisement dated 14.12.2022 is unlawful;
(b) Declare that the refusal of the Respondents to consider Petitioner's candidature for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of the Petitioner as guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner at the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) in Respondent No.1 Airports Authority of India against Advertisement dated 14.12.2022;..."
4. Ms. Pooja Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned action and submits that insofar as the vacancies to the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) of the respondent is concerned, the posts reserved for the ST category is indicated as `01', whereas according to the Constitutional Mandate, ought to have been `02' in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the DoPT.
5. She submits that according to the circular dated 17.06.2021 as against the Senior Assistant (Electronics), 32 vacant posts were assessed, out of which the breakup was UR-26, SC-4 and ST-2. She submits that contrary to their own circular dated 17.06.2021, the advertisement bearing ADVT. No 01/2022/NR dated 14.12.2022 at page 87 of the present petition, though shows the total vacancies of Senior Assistant (Electronics) as 32, however, the seats reserved for the ST category is indicated as `01'.
6. Learned counsel submits that unilaterally, the Airport Authority of India, i.e., the respondent does not have any right, authority or jurisdiction to decrease the constitutional mandate of reservation to the ST category, particularly when in the previous circular assessing the vacancies showed as `02' reserved posts for the ST category. She submits that this is the seminal cause on which the present petition is based.
7. Subsequently, learned counsel also submits that the petitioner, who is a B. Tech degree holder having two years' experience in the relevant course, was refused consideration of her candidature. This was revealed only after a number of representations were made and finally after a response from the respondents was elicited by a query raised under the Right to Information Act, 2005, vide the reply dated 20.09.2023 which disclosed that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification/experience does not relate to the job requirement.
8. She submits that the petitioner had the requisite two years' experience as per the advertisement as also she is a B. Tech degree holder which is a higher qualification than the Diploma in Electronics. She submits that it is trite that a higher degree qualification would be sufficient for a post requiring a lower qualification and not vice versa.
9. She submits that having regard to both the above issues (i) that the reservation to the extent of one more post to the ST category, if given, coupled with the experience of two years and (ii) the B. Tech degree being the higher qualification, the petitioner would be well within the consideration zone and ought to be selected for the said post. She also submits that her name was in the provisional list, having cleared the written examination too. As such, she submits that there was no reason as to why the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics).
10. Insofar as the issue of experience i
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav
Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi
Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttrakhand & Ors.
Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors.
The importance of challenging issues at the initial stage and the impact of misrepresentation on eligibility.
The judgment establishes the principle that in the absence of a specific provision in the advertisement, there is a presumption that only the experience earned after acquiring the degree would be cou....
Point of law: if a candidate who secured more marks than the last selected candidate, if a candidate from OBC/BC has secured more marks than the last selected candidate from open category, such candi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person holding lien on a permanent post of an organization falls within the definition of a Departmental Candidate and is eligible to appear....
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment criteria after participating in the selection process, as estoppel applies. Eligibility is determined by the employer based on stated qualifications within the....
The entitlement to appointments based on wait list positions and the application of age relaxation and policy circulars in determining eligibility for appointments.
Similarly situated candidates with higher qualifications entitled to equal treatment under Articles 14 & 16, overriding strict graduation elective requirements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.