Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Sanjay Singh Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Airport Authority of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7429 of 2018, CM APPL. 28420 of 2018, CM APPL. 3773 of 2023 & CM APPL. 45730 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2024
Departmental Candidate - Eligibility for Departmental Examination - [Regulation 2(j) of the Airports Authority of India (Recruitment and Promotions) Guidelines, 2005] - The court held that the petitioner, who held lien on a permanent post of the respondent, fell within the definition of a Departmental Candidate and his candidature could not have been cancelled on the ground that he was not on the payroll of the respondent. However, due to the petitioner's failure to rejoin the respondent's services despite opportunities granted by the court, no relief was granted in favor of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, while in service of the respondent Airport Authority of India, applied for the Departmental Examination for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services) under 25% Departmental Examination Quota. Subsequently, the petitioner joined another institution, and his technical resignation was accepted by the respondent with a grant of three years' lien period. The respondent called the petitioner for the examination, and he appeared for it, topping the list. However, the respondent rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground that he was not on the payroll of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner fell within the definition of a Departmental Candidate and his candidature could not have been cancelled on the ground that he was not on the payroll of the respondent. However, due to the petitioner's failure to rejoin the respondent's services despite opportunities granted by the court, no relief was granted in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who held lien on a permanent post of the respondent, could be considered as a Departmental Candidate for the purpose of being eligible to appear for the Departmental Examination under the 25% Departmental Quota for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services) while being in regular service of another institution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, who held lien on a permanent post of the respondent, fell within the definition of a Departmental Candidate and his candidature could not have been cancelled on the ground that he was not on the payroll of the respondent. However, due to the petitioner's failure to rejoin the respondent's services despite opportunities granted by the court, no relief was granted in favor of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition along with pending application(s) was disposed of with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:
"(a) Declare that the refusal of the Respondents to consider Petitioner's candidature for physical measurement and endurance test for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services) under 25% Departmental Examination Quota, is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of the Petitioner as guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's candidature for physical measurement and endurance test for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services) under 25% Departmental Examination Quota;
(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 Junior Executive (Fire Services) under 25% Departmental Examination Quota subject to the outcome of physical measurement and endurance test
(d) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the emails dated 27.6.2018, 4.7.2018 and 12.7.2018 sent by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner to be illegal, arbitrary and declare the same null and Void;
(e) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."
2. The facts as culled out from the petition, shorn of all unnecessary details and germane and relevant to decide the dispute are as under:
(i) In 2002, the Petitioner joined the Respondent Airport Authority of India in the post of Assistant, Fire Service.
(ii) The Petitioner got a job offer for appointment as Fire Officer in Civil Aviation Authority, State of Qatar on 11.12.2016 and a revised offer on 19.04.2017. This was a Government organization recognized by ICAO, and the Petitioner had applied for the same after duly taking permission from the respondent. Thereafter, on 01.05.2017, the Petitioner submitted a letter citing the above appointment and sought to be relieved from the post and requested the respondent/AAI for grant of lien.
(iii) The Manager, HR, Northern Region on 29.05.2017, wrote a letter to Executive Director, HR for approval of Competent Authority for retention of lien of the Petitioner.
(iv) On 29.06.2017, the respondent Airport Authority of India invited applications for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services) under the 25% Departmental Examination Quota. The Petitioner filed his application in terms of the advertisement.
(v) On 31.07.2017, the Petitioner sent a letter to the respondent Airport Authority seeking grant of `lien' for a period of three years.
(vi) On 23.08.2017, the respondent authority conveyed the in principle approval of the Competent Authority for grant of `lien' for three years to the Petitioner.
(vii) Further, on 13.11.2017, the respondent authority accepted the Technical Resignation letter of the Petitioner and relieved him from duty w.e.f. 02.11.2017. The letter accepting the resignation also stated that the petitioner shall remain on `lien' w.e.f. 02.11.2017 for a period of 3 years.
(viii) The Airport Authority of India, Department of Human Resources, on 11.01.2018, issued the list of eligible candidates to appear in the online examination for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services) under 25% Departmental Examination Quota. The list was issued pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.06.2017. The Petitioner's name was at Serial No.l of the list of eligible candidates.
(ix) The Petitioner appeared for the Departmental Examination conducted on 26.03.2018, pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.06.2017.
(x) On 24.05.2018, the Recruitment Cell, Directorate of HRM, Airports Authority of India declared the results of the Departmental Examination for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services). The number of vacancies circulated was stated to be 6 and the Petitioner was shown provisionally shortlisted for Physical Measure
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....
A bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be allowed to be cured.
The importance of challenging issues at the initial stage and the impact of misrepresentation on eligibility.
An application for a government position is invalid if not submitted through the proper channel, and age relaxation cannot apply if the application is defective.
Degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering held equivalent to Mechanical Engineering for Junior Engineer (Electrical) post based on prior acceptance, university certificate, and curriculum simil....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
