2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 73592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SMT. HARITHA G – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) 35984/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH WEDNESDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 35984 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:
SMT. HARITHA G AGED 32 YEARS W/O VISHNU DAS K G HARITHA NIVAS, NADUVILACHERRY, KANJAVELI P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691602 BY ADV P.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, BLOCK B, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT AREA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
2 THE CHAIRMAN AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHQ, A’ BLOCK, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
3 THE MEMBER (HR)
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHQ, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
4 THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS, SOUTHERN REGION, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MEENAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI, PIN - 600027
5 GENERAL MANAGER (HR)
SOUTHERN REGION, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHENNAI, PIN - 600027
6 SMT. K. JIMISHA [DELETED]
JUNIOR EXECUTIVE (CNS), O/O THE AIRPORT CONTROLLER, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, AGATTI AIRPORT, AGATTI, LAKSHADWEEP [THE 6TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED
14/11/2024 IN I.A.NO.2/2024 IN WP(C)35984/2024]., PIN - 682553
7 SHRI. NAGEENDRA PRASA N JUNIOR EXECUTIVE(CNS), REGIONAL HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN REGION, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MEENAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI, PIN - 600027 BY ADVS.
SABU GEORGE.
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN(K/1145/2009)
MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013)
AISWARYA MOHAN(K/274/2020)
CHITRA JOHNSON(K/000924/2018) P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)(K/1193/1994)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON 19.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard Mr P Raveendran learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Sabu Geroge learned Standing Counsel for the Airports Authority of India. Facts
2. The petitioner applied for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) in the Airports Authority of India Southern Region, for which a notification for selection was issued on 20.12.2023. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the non- inclusion of her name in the final select list despite, according to her, securing the top position in the written test.
3. According to the petitioner, she belongs to the Ezhava non-
creamy layer category. She had submitted an online application claiming relaxation of age. The petitioner was issued the non-creamy layer certificate No.87941892 dated 19.08.2024 by Tahsildar, Kollam. A computer-based test was conducted on 17.03.2024 and the marks scored by the candidates were published. After the publication of the marks scored by the candidates, the Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Airports Authority of India, Chennai, issued a communication dated 14.08.2024 to the petitioner to appear at the office with all necessary certificates for verification. A final list (provisional selection list for attending training) was published intimating the training at Civil Aviation Training College (CATC), Prayagraj with effect from 04.11.2024 of the candidates whose roll numbers were mentioned in the said list.
4. The petitioner’s roll number did not find a place in the said list of the candidates selected for training. According to the petitioner, she has two years of teaching experience in a Technical Institute recognized by the Government of India. Teaching experience in a technical institute with a lab is considered equivalent to technical experience. It is further submitted that in the earlier selections also, candidates with B. Tech and M. Tech with teaching experience were considered suitable for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics), and they were appointed. The petitioner has stated the names of two persons who had similar experience of teaching who were appointed in the earlier selections for which notification was issued in the year 2018.
5. Thus, the petitioner prays for quashing Ext.P10 to the extent it excludes the petitioner and for a declaration that the petitioner i