ORDER

% 19.01.2024 (The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking the following prayers:-

“(a) Declare that the refusal of the Respondents to 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;

Page 2 of 4 (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.l to the Petitioner to be illegal, arbitrary and declare the same null and void;…”

2. After having heard arguments of Ms. Pooja Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire issue is in respect of as to whether the petitioner, who had given a technical resignation and accepted by Airport Authority of India, could be considered as departmental candidate for the purposes of being eligible to give 25% Departmental Examination for the post of Junior Executive (Fire Services), while actually being in regular service of another institution.

3. The contention of Ms. Dhar is that the petitioner while in service of Airport Authority of India, by virtue of the advertisement dated 29.06.2017 given by Airport Authority in respect of the aforesaid departmental examination, had applied on 11.07.2017 for the same and was also allowed on 23.08.2017. It was only subsequently that that petitioner had joined the Page 3 of 4 service of another institution for which the technical resignation was accepted in the interregnum.

4. Ms. Dhar submits that alongwith the order accepting the technical resignation on 18.11.2017, the respondent Airport Authority of India agreed to a grant of three years’ lien period from the said date. Ms. Dhar submits that while the petitioner was serving in the other institution at the State of Qatar, the respondent Airport Authority of India on 11.01.2018 had called the petitioner for participating in the Junior Executive (Fire Services) examination. She submits that the results were declared on 24.05.2018 by the Airport Authority of India and the petitioner was at the top of the list.

She submits that it was only subsequently that by virtue of the letter dated 27.06.2018, the respondent Airport Authority of India had rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not on the payroll of Airport Authority of India. It is this order that the petitioner seeks to challenge and set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Airport Authority of India submits that the impugned letter is clear in its purport, in that, the petitioner, admittedly not being on the payroll of the Airport Authority of India during the period after the Airport Authority of India had accepted his technical resignation, could not be considered as a departmental candidate and as such, was neither entitled nor was eligible to give the 25% Junior Executive (Fire Services) LDC Examination.

6. Mr. Rai submits that a person