DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, SANJEEV NARULA
Tallapalli Saikrishna – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' grievance on promotional avenues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the legality of recruitment advertisement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court evaluates validity of recruitment criteria. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court reinforces aai's regulatory authority. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Sanjeev Narula, J. The Petitioners, who are employees of Respondent No. 3 - Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as "AAI") and have preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as they are aggrieved by an advertisement dated 3rd July, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned advertisement") issued by the AAI for direct recruitment to the post of Manager (Electronics), contending that their promotional avenues for the said post, to which they are otherwise eligible, are being curtailed. At the same time, they seek quashing of the Recruitment and Promotion Guidelines, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "2005 Guidelines") as well as a circular dated 18th July, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "2016 Circular") of AAI. They also seek to challenge the legali
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.