The court found that failure to disclose valid licensing and misrepresentation of qualifications justified the cancellation of the appointment, reinforcing the obligation to provide accurate information in professional applications.

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM No.23957/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 7671/2021

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') in

O.A.No.4196/2016.

2.1. The Tribunal, via the impugned order, has sustained the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which, in effect, represents respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2.2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2, vide order dated 25.11.2016, have cancelled the offer of appointment captured in communication dated 04.03.2016, made to the petitioner. In sum, respondent no.1 has withdrawn the offer of appointment, vide its order dated 25.11.2016.

2.3. It is required to be noticed that, the petitioner had applied for the post of Director of Flying Training, pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent no.2/DGCA. The process of selection was entrusted to respondent no.3/UPSC. It is not in dispute that, the selection committee recommended the petitioner's name for appointment to the said post.

2.4. Since there was a delay in issuance of the appointment order, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal via O.A. No.2229/2016. This OA was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.07.2016, directing the respondents to take a decision, within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

2.5. As a matter of fact, the record shows that, the petitioner had also initiated contempt proceedings in the matter [i.e. CP No. 440/2016 filed in OA No, 2229/2016], perhaps, on account of the fact that there had been a delay on the part of the respondents, in taking a decision qua the petitioner's appointment.

2.6. It is, at this juncture, that respondent no.2/DGCA issued an order dated 25.11.2016, to which we have made a reference above. The petitioner, as noted hereinabove, has assailed the said order, via the instant O.A., i.e., O.A.No.4196/2016.

2.7. The record shows that, the order dated 25.11.2016 was passed against the petitioner, principally, on the following ground:

"...Capt. Hooda lacks the eligibility for the post of Director, Flying Training due to deficiencies in the technical competency which is construed by his act of suppression of material information and his approach being very lethargic, casual and insincere towards rules and procedures, which has also been upheld by the Appellate authority".

2.8. The record establishes that, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, on 01.03.2016, by respondent no.2/DGCA, as he had imparted instruction as a Flying Instructor for little over 60 hours, between 12.11.2015 to 25.11.2015, without a valid licence in place. The petitioner had replied to the aforementioned show cause notice vide communication dated 08.08.2016.

2.9. The fact that the petitioner had acted as a Flying Instructor for the aforementioned period, without a valid licence, was accepted by the petitioner in his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice.

3. According to respondent no.2/DGCA, there was a misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner, as regards material information, and therefore, the said respondent was not willing to continue with the offer of appointment made to him.

4. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that, the eligibility criteria qua subject post did not require the petitioner to secure Chief Flight Instructor's and Designated Examiner's [in short "CFI and DR"] license. Thus, the offer of appointment made to the petitioner should not have been cancelled