1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging impugned circular dated 18.9.2013 issued by the fourth respondent under the directions of the third respondent and the consequent letter dated 23.10.2013 issued by the sixth respondent, and consequently directing respondents 1 and 2 to continue to treat her as qualified Chief Cabin Crew Incharge on the strength of the relevant certification in her SEP Book.

2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:-

"(a) The petitioner joined Air India as an Air Hostess on 20.11.1989. Her employee number is 505447. She has put in 21 years of service and she is having flight experience of over 10,000 hours. She has worked as a Chief Cabin Crew for over 15 years and has served on the Domestic Sector and on the International Sector also.

(b) In the year 2010, for the first time, the first respondent exercising his power under Sections 4 and 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rules 29C and 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 issued Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR). In this connection, a "Safety & Emergency Procedure (SEP)" booklet was issued by the second respondent to all Cabin Crew of Air India. The fifth respondent is although an employee of Air India Limited, he was authorised as an SEP Instructor by the second respondent, to make entries under the head "Type of Training" in terms of training imparted such as for Initial Training / Type Training / Conversion Training / Recurrent Training / Differences Training / Refresher Training / Cabin Crew Incharge Training / Corrective Training, etc.

(c) The petitioner was also issued SEP Book on completion of Annual Refresher Training that she had undergone between 18.5.2010 and 21.5.2010. As part of Refresher Training between 18.5.2010 and 21.5.2010, the petitioner was also imparted an one day training required for flying as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge which was introduced in the CAR series with effect from 15.3.2010. Since the petitioner was also imparted one day training required for flying as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge, in her SEP Book, a tick was made in the box pertaining to Chief Cabin Crew Incharge training as part of the CAR. On completion of training, the petitioner was functioning as Chief Cabin Crew Incharge.

(d) While so, the petitioner, at her request, had proceeded on a two-year leave with effect from 1.7.2010 under leave without pay (LWP) scheme formulated by the company. After expiry of leave, the petitioner reported duty on 2.7.2012. At the time of resuming duty, her SEP booklet was examined by the respondent Airline and after due application of mind including taking due note of the tick in the SEP book pertaining to the box meant for Cabin Crew Incharge difference training, the petitioner was advised to undergo ab-initio training. The respondent Airline has not chosen to send her for Cabin Crew Incharge Differences Training to regularise the Cabin Crew Incharge training, which the petitioner had already undergone in May, 2010 itself. Hence, the petitioner had undergone ab-iintio training after resuming duty for a period of 9 weeks between 13.5.2013 and 10.7.2013. After the ab-initio training between 1.8.2013 and 24.9.2013, the petitioner flew as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge for over 92 hours.

(e) While so, the fourth respondent issued the impugned circular dated 18.9.2013 stating that the petitioner has supposedly not undergone the Cabin Crew Incharge Differences Training. Aggrieved by the said incorrect circular, the petitioner, by e-mail dated 28.9.2013, requested the reason for the said impugned circular and also requested to permit her to continue to fly as Chief Cabin Crew Incharge. However, the fourth respondent, who is the competent officer and the author of the impugned circular, failed to respond. Therefore, by e-mail dated 5.10.2013, the petitioner once again wrote a letter to respondents 4 and 6 stating that the letter displayed on the Board is not binding on her. However, the petit