$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24^th December, 2024 + W.P.(C) 7524/2013 K.K. SONI & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Singh, Mr. Shantanu Shukla and Mr. Akshat Agrawal, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Mr. Nippun Sharma and Mr. Devesh Khanagwal, Advocates for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Archit Mishra, Mr. Rohit Kumar Munjral, Mr. Raghib Ali Khan, Advocates with Mr. Yatinder Choudhary, Law Officer, for Respondent No.2/AAI.

Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Sarthak Pandey and Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocates for private Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

CM APPL. 12000/2024

1. This is an application for impleadment of the applicant as Respondent No. 259.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 7524/2013 Page 1 of 25 W.P.(C) 7524/2013 and CM APPL. 2216/2014

3. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, laying a siege to seniority list of Managers (‘ATC’) dated 11.01.2011 as also seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to Respondent No.2/Airports Authority of India (‘AAI’) to re-cast the seniority list in the ratio of 3:1 as per Section-II, Clause 6.1(i) and Section-IV, Clause 21(ii) and Clauses 30.1.7 to 30.1.10 of Airports Authority of India (Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 2005 (‘2005 Regulations’) related to General Principles of Seniority, with consequential benefits.

4. To the extent relevant for the adjudication of this writ petition, the facts as emerging from the writ petition are that AAI invited applications for filling up posts of Manager (ATC) and the notified vacancies as per Advertisement No.2/2007 dated 07.10.2007 were 68. Written examination was conducted on 09.11.2008 followed by interviews, between July and August, 2009. Final result was declared on 01.12.2009, whereby Petitioners were declared successful and they joined in the year 2010 as direct recruit candidates. 68 vacancies notified by AAI included 55 vacancies for the year

2005 and 13 for the year 2006 as per the averment in the writ petition.

5. In the meantime, promotions were made by AAI and 67 Assistant Managers (ATC) were promoted to the post of Manager (ATC) on 17.08.2005; 50 were promoted on 01.12.2006; 23 were promoted on 23.06.2007; 29 were provisionally promoted on 08.11.2007, subject to final decision by the inter-se Seniority Committee; 42 were promoted on 03.04.2008; 159 were promoted on 22.05.2009; and 6 were promoted on

24.12.2009, i.e. before Petitioners joined as direct recruits.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 7524/2013 Page 2 of 25

6. On 11.01.2011, seniority list was circulated wherein Petitioners were placed below the promotees, which according to the Petitioners was erroneous and without carrying out the exercise of interspacing departmental promotees and direct recruits in 3:1 ratio as per 2005 Regulations and overlooking the fact that the direct recruitment process had commenced in the year 2007. Second seniority list was issued on 23.03.2012, wherein Petitioners were again placed below the promotees. Being aggrieved, one of the Petitioners made a representation on 01.02.2012 to rectify seniority list dated 11.01.2011 in the ATC discipline in accordance with 2005 Regulations, but there was no response or action. Third seniority list was issued on 15.01.2013, but the seniority position was maintained despite the representation, constraining the Petitioners to approach this Court in 2013. Be it noted that in the present writ petition challenge is laid only to seniority list dated 11.01.2011.

7. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners argued that as per Clause 6.1(i) of Section-II and Clause 21(vii) of Section- IV of 2005 Regulations, 25% posts of Manager (ATC) [E-3 Level]