The Court held that compliance with updated licensing requirements under DGCA takes precedence in promotion matters, reinforcing the non-justiciable nature of executive instructions relative to statutory regulations.

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 Respon