AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner
Nos.",Name,Organization,Work Experience,,
1,Dhananjay Mishra,"1. Engineering Projects
India Ltd.",4 Years 3 Months,,
,,2.BHEL,2 Years 6 Months,,
2,Vikash Kumar,"Air India Air Transport
Services Limited",6 Years 5 Months 17 Days,,
3,Neha Chouhan,"Air India Air Transport
service Ltd",6 Years 8 Months 30 Days,,
4,"Rigvendra Kumar
Vardhan","National Institute of
Ocean Technology",5 Months 25 Days,,
,,"Combat Vehicles Res. &
Dev. Estt., DRDO
(Central Govt.)",1 Year 11 Months 21 Days,,
,,"BRG Iron and Steel Pvt
Ltd.",2 Years 11 Month 12 Days,,
5,Yashwant Kumar,"1.RailTel Corporation
of India Limited",4 Years 3 Months 14 Days,,
,,2.Narula Infra Pvt Ltd,11 Months 2 Days,,
,,"3.Elblag Technology
Pvt Ltd",7 Months 27 Days,,
6,Naveen Kr Saluja,"Air India Transport
service",6 Years 7 Months 28 Days,,
7,Saritha TS,"Kerala State Electronics
Development
Corporation Limited","7 Years 9 Months 8 Days (as
on 19.05.2019)",,
8,Prateek Bisht,"Air India Air Transport
Services
Limited",6 Years 8 Months 16 Days,,
9,Anurag Jain,"Centre for
Development of
Advanced Computing (C-
DAC)","7 Months 17 Days;
7 Months;
3 Years 9 Months 12 Days;
1 Year 5 Months 27 Days",,
10,"Arvind Kewart
[W.P.(C)
9716/2019]",ITI Ltd,3 Years,,
,,"Broadcast Engineering
Consultants India
Limited (BECIL)",3 Years 01 Month,,
11,"Anand Kumar
[W.P.(C)
10697/2019]",AAI,1 Year 09 Months 25 Days,,
,,"Centre for
Development of
Advanced Computing (C-
DAC)",1 Year 07 Months 18 Days,,
,,"Galgotias College of
Engg. and Technology",3 Years 10 Months 30 Days,,
,,"College of Engineering
Roorkee",1 Year 5 Months 30 Days,,
12.,V.S. Jayalakshmi,"L&T Technology
Service",1 Year 5 Months 19 Days.,,
,,Ashok Leyland,4 Years 5 Months 16 Days,,
In the rejoinder filed by Dhananjay & Ors., it comes to be stated that as regards the petitioner no.1â€"Dhananjay Kumar Mishra, AAI admits that",,,,,
he was in Executive Cadre as an Asst. Manager (Electronics & Communication), though, on contract basis, and, that as per the check-lists prepared",,,,,
by the officials of the HR Department of AAI, they were found to be fulfilling the minimum 5 years work experience in the Executive post. In addition",,,,,
thereto, in their rejoinder, they also point out the instance of one Mr.Anurag Kumar having 4 years experience on the post of Junior",,,,,
Executiveâ€"Technical with Air India Air Transport Services Limited, having been invited for interview. Citing such an instance, the experience of the",,,,,
petitioner nos.2, 3, 6 & 8 in the case of Dhananjay & Ors., is sought to be considered. In the rejoinder, Dhananjay Kumar & Ors. also assert that",,,,,
three of the persons namely, Mr. Anurag Kumar, Ms. Pragya Patel and Mr.Arun Kumar, were similarly placed as the petitioners and were",,,,,
entertained by AAI for interview. Anand, in the rejoinder has also taken the plea that his basic pay was more than the Executive Posts with AAI and",,,,,
he also had the experience of working in Group 'A' post in the scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 with grade pay of Rs.6,000/- (Academic Grade pay). In",,,,,
addition thereto, he also points out the instances of candidates working with BSNL, who were having general experience in the field of electronics and",,,,,
communication, having been called for interview by AAI. Jayalakshmi, in the rejoinder, states that even though the employer has the liberty to set out",,,,,
qualifications, experience(s) and other conditions but it cannot be whimsical for a public post. It is thus her plea that condition of 11 Lacs CTC p.a.",,,,,
was arbitrary and not in public interest. In support of such pleas reliance is placed on 'State of Bihar and others vs Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak",,,,,
Sangh and Ors' (2006) 2 SCC 545 and 'Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs The State of Gujarat' (1974) 2 SCC 121.,,,,,
In the submissions of Mr. Singh, ld. counsel for Dhananjay & Ors., the subject petitioners, who were working in different Government",,,,,
Organizations, had the requisite Executive experience as defined by their parent Government Organizations with which were working. According to",,,,,
him, it was so accepted by AAI, when the said petitioners found their place in the merit list on CBT on-line test having been conducted as prescribed",,,,,
in the advertisement. It also comes to be pointed that as per the check-lists prepared by the office of AAI, they were found to be having the requisite",,,,,
experience in the Executive Cadre. It is also his contention that the subject petitioners, who were working on contract basis in different Government",,,,,
Organizations and found merited on the CBT on-line test could not be considered unfavourably as against the regular employees. In addition thereto, in",,,,,
his submissions, AAI had brought in a change/addition in the eligibility criterion after conducting the CBT on-line test, and, therefore, such action was",,,,,
not sustainable and hit by principles of estoppel. In support of such submissions, reliance is placed on 'Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation",,,,,
vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve' MANU/SC/0737/2001.,,,,,
In the submissions of Mr.Mahapatra, ld. counsel for Arvind, AAI has erred in interpreting the condition of 5 years’ work experience in",,,,,
Executive Cadre and the reliance placed on the judgment in W.P.(C) 8326/2005 'Umesh Verma vs. The Chairman/Managing Director National,,,,,
Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.' was misplaced. In his submissions, the word 'Executive' as per Webster's dictionary means 'a person or a group of",,,,,
persons having administrative or supervisory authority, as in a company; 2. the person or persons in whom the supreme executive power of a",,,,,
Government is vested; 3. The executive branch of a Governmentâ€"adj.; 4. of, pertaining to, or suited for carrying out plans, duties etc.; executive",,,,,
ability......' His such submissions have been in addition to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the petitioners in Dhananjay & Ors.,,,,,
In the submissions of Mr. Bhardwaj, ld. counsel for Anand, Anand met the requisite eligibility criterion of having 5 years’ work experience in",,,,,
the Executive post inasmuch as the Executive Cadre includes all the discipline viz. technical, operational, law, CA and CS etc. and as per the pay-",,,,,
scale drawn by Anand, who had served as Junior Executive, Lecturer and Asst. Professor for more than 5 years in the higher pay-scale of Rs.16,400-",,,,,
40,500 as against the pay-scale of Rs.12,600-32,500, he fulfilled the eligibility criterion of having 5 years’ work experience in the Executive Cadre.",,,,,
It is also his contention that the advertisement nowhere prescribed that the experience was required to be gained in Government College / Institute and,,,,,
therefore, it was not open to AAI to insist for experience in a Government Organization. As for the connotation and the meaning of Cadre, in his",,,,,
submissions, a Cadre would ordinarily mean strength of a service or a part of service so determined and therefore, the expression ""Executive Cadre"",",,,,,
as stated to in the advertisement has to be understood to imply that the concerned person must have gained experience at a higher level inasmuch as,,,,,
the object to be achieved in prescribing eligibility criterion is to have such persons who have experience of working at a higher level (Executive,,,,,
Cadre), and, such eligibility criterion has no concern with the organized service or cadre etc. In support of such submissions, he placed reliance upon",,,,,
'Dr. Asim Kumar Bose vs. UOI & Ors.' (1983) 1 SCC 345 and 'Ran Singh Malik vs. State of Haryana & Ors.' (2002) 3 SCC 182.,,,,,
In the submissions of Mr.Muhammed, ld. counsel for Jayalakshmi, the condition of 'Not less than Rs.11 lacs CTC p.a.' was unconstitutional being",,,,,
violative of Articles 13(2), 14, 16, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution being unjust, unfair etc. In his submissions, the fundamental right to carry on any",,,,,
occupation can be restricted only reasonably as contemplated under Article 16 of the Constitution and in the absence of any law prescribing the,,,,,
requirement of 'Not less than Rs.11 lacs CTC p.a.' it was not sustainable and such stipulation was liable to be quashed. Similarly, adverting to Articles",,,,,
13(2), 14 and 16(1) it was contended by him that the stipulation of not less than Rs.11 lacs CTC p.a. for the persons from private sector was violative",,,,,
of Articles 13(2), 14, 16(1) and 19 of the Constitution and that such stipulation does not serve any purpose for a public service. In support of such",,,,,
submissions, reliance is placed on 'State of Bihar & Ors vs. Project Uchcha Vidya' (2006) 2 SCC 545; 'State of W.B. vs. Debasish Mukherjee' (2011)",,,,,
14 SCC 187; 'Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India' (1986) 1 SCC 133; 'Prabodh Verma vs. State of UP' (1984) 4 SCC 251; 'Nawabkhan,,,,,
vs. State of Gujarat' (1974) 2 SCC 121; 'Nar Singh Pal vs. UOI' (2000) 3 SCC 588 and 'Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra',,,,,
(1974) 1 SCC 317.,,,,,
In the submissions of Mr. Rai, ld. Sr. Counsel for AAI appearing in the cases other than that of Jayalakshmi, none of the petitioners was borne on",,,,,
the Cadre of a Public Sector Undertaking and their CTC being less than Rs.11 lacs p.a. on the cut-off date, they were ineligible for appointment to the",,,,,
given post. In support of such submissions, Mr. Rai submitted out that the said petitioners had worked as contractual employees rather than the regular",,,,,
employees of any of the PSUs. It however came to be pointed out by him that the criterion of Rs.11 lacs CTC p.a. was forming part of the conditions,,,,,
incorporated in the advertisement inviting applications since inception and no rule of game had come to be changed later. In his submissions, a",,,,,
contractual employee is neither on the strength of service nor against a sanctioned post and therefore, when it came to be ascertained that the subject",,,,,
petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criterion of Rs.11 lacs CTC p.a., the process of their selection was haulted and therefore, the action of AAI",,,,,
could not be faulted. In his submissions, the word 'Cadre' has a distinctive connotation to mean 'strength of service or a part of service sanctioned as a",,,,,
separate unit'. In support of such submissions, Mr. Rai placed reliance on the judgment of a ld. Single Judge of this Court in 'Umesh Verma' (supra)",,,,,
and 'Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. State of Bihar' (1988) 2 SCC 214. It also came to be submitted by him that the petitioners having participated in the,,,,,
selection process by appearing for written test could not turn around later and question the specifications given in the advertisement for selection to the,,,,,
given post. It was also his contention that the rule of contemporanea expositio commands due deference to the Executive interpretation and the word,,,,,
'Cadre' as understood by the employer is the plausible view and therefore, the subject petitioners being not borne on a PSU cadre did not qualify for",,,,,
the given post. In support of such submission, the reliance was placed on 'Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttaranchal' (2008) 4 SCC 171; and 'Rohitash",,,,,
Kumar vs. Om Prakash Sharma' (2013) 11 SCC 451. Placing reliance upon 'Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi vs. Aarya K. Babu'",,,,,
(2019) 8 SCC 587, it was also contended that the equivalence is never supplied by the Courts unless the rules provide for themselves. Even as per the",,,,,
existing and the revised pay-scale of Executive Cadre, which was Rs.16,400-40,500 and revised to Rs.40,000-1,40,000, the petitioners could not be",,,,,
treated at par with the Executive Cadre and even on that count, they were ineligible. Similar submissions came to be made by the counsel for AAI",,,,,
appearing in Jayalakshmi's case.,,,,,
On facts, as per the list of not eligible candidates published by AAI, it can be outrightly observed that from amongst the 12 petitioners, Anand was",,,,,
declared ineligible with the remark 'less than 5 years’ experience as Executive Cadre', while others were declared ineligible with the remark 'less",,,,,
LEVEL,DESIGNATION,PAY SCALES (In Rs.),GROUP,,
NE-1,"Junior Attendant or
equivalent",4400-75-5300-90-6920,“Dâ€,,
NE-2,Attendant or equivalent,4900-95-6040-110-8020,,,
NE-3,"Senior Attendant or
equivalent","5300-115-6680-135-
9110",,,
NE-4,"Junior Assistant or
equivalent","5500-140-7180-160-
10060",“Câ€,,
NE-5,Assistant or equivalent,"5800-160-7720-180-
10960",,,
NE-6,"S enior Assistant or
equivalent","6300-180-8460-200-
12060",,,
NE-7,Supervisor or equivalent,"6500-200-8900-220-
12860",,,
NE-8,"Superintendent or
equivalent","7200-230-9960-250-
14460",,,
NE-9,"Senior Superintendent
Equivalent","8000-260-11120-290-
16340",“Bâ€,,
NE-10,"Senior Superintendent
(Special Grade) or
equivalent",9000-300-18000,,,
,,,,,
E-4,"Senior Manager or
equivalent",14500-350-18700,"""A""",,
E-5,"A s s i s t a n t General
Manager or equivalent",16000-400-20800,,,
E-6,"D e p u t y General
Manager or equivalent",17500-400-22300,"""A""",,
E-7,"Additional General
Manager or equivalent",18500-450-23900,,,
E-8,"General Manager or
equivalent",20500-500-26500,,,
E-9,"Executive Director or
equivalent",23750-600-28550,,,
LEVEL,DESIGNATION,AY SCALES (In Rs.),GROUP,,
NE-1,Junior Attendant & equivalen,4400-75-5300-90-6920],“Dâ€,,
NE-2,Attendant & equivalent,"4900-95-6040-110-
8020]",,,
NE-3,Senior Attendant & equivalent,"5300-115-6680-135-
9110]",,,
NE-4,Junior Assistant & equivalent,"5500-140-7180-160-
10060]",“Câ€,,
NE-5,Assistant & equivalent,"5800-160-7720-180-
10960]",,,
NE-6,Senior Assistant & equivalent,"6300-180-8460-200-
12060]",,,
NE-7,Supervisor & equivalent,"6500-200-8900-220-
12860]",,,
NE-8,Superintendent & equivalent,"7200-230-9960-250-
14460]",,,
NE-9,Senior Superintendent & equivalent,"8000-260-11120-290-
16340]",“Bâ€,,
NE-10,"S r . Superintendent (SG) &
equivalent.......................................................................",9000-300-18000],,,
A,E-6,DGM & Equivt.,Upto25%,"T h i s is an
enabling
provision and
will be resorted
to only when
qualified/eligible
candidates in
the next below
cadre of
concerned
discipline are
not available for
promotion.","F i r s t class
MBA/M.Tech./
B.E/B. Arch
B.Tech./LLB OR
equivalent, with
relevant
experience in
the concerned
discipline as
prescribed for
each discipline.
A,E-3,Mgr. & Equivt.,25%*,All disciplines,"First class MBA
B.Tech./ B.E. OR
Professional
Degree from a
reputed Institute
O R equivalent
with relevant
experience in
the concerned
discipline as
prescribed for
each discipline.
B,E-1,"Junior Executive
& Equivt.",75%**,"Communication,
ATC,
Electronics,
Engg.(Civil) &
(Elect.) and
other disciplines
as per
requirement","B.Tech/ B.E. OR
equivalent/
MBA/ CA/ ICWA/
Professional
Degree from A
reputed Institute
OR Equivalent.
The Regulations, 2003 and the proposed Regulations, 2005 are also relevant to get the correct import of the term/expression 'Executive Cadre'",,,,,
used in the advertisement. The proposed Regulations, 2005, which have the approval of the Board of AAI, as regards the criterion of experience for",,,,,
selection to the given postâ€"a direct selection post, do not even suggest for the required experience having to be only on a permanent or regular post.",,,,,
It only speaks of the experience in the concerned discipline as may be prescribed. Taking note thereof, and, the connotation of the term 'Cadre' to",,,,,
mean the strength of the service or a part thereof, and, which would include both permanent and temporary, the contention of Mr. Rai, ld. Sr. Counsel",,,,,
for AAI that the term 'Cadre' as used in the advertisement for selection to the given post implies exclusion of experience on contract basis, is without",,,,,
any valid foundation or justification. Even otherwise, what is so sacrosanct about it, AAI miserably fails to explain, equally. It would suffice to observe,",,,,,
the proposed Regulations, 2005 if not binding in the absence of the approval of the Central Government and the consequent notification thereof when",,,,,
the advertisement inviting applications for the given post came to be issued, at least, clearly state the requirements for the given post by AAI. Any",,,,,
situation, which creates ambiguity therefore, cannot be allowed. In the given factual conspectus, the reliance placed on 'Rohitash Kumar vs. Om",,,,,
Prakash Sharma' (2013) 11 SCC 451 by Mr. Rai, ld. Sr. Counsel for AAI to invoke the 'rule of contemporanea expositio' to contend that due",,,,,
deference is to be given to the Executive interpretation, is misplaced. In the said context, it may only be said, the administrative view has to be within",,,,,
the conscience of law, which should not adversely affect a person or a class of persons on strict technicalities.",,,,,
The petitioners, but for Jayalakshmi, as per their assertions, are working in Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises and it emerges, most of them",,,,,
are Maha Ratna or Mini Ratna Government of India Enterprises or Undertakings alike AAIâ€"which is conferred with the Mini Ratna Category-I,,,,,
status. In the given factual conspectus to underestimate or undervalue the calibre of the employees engaged by such other Government of India,,,,,
Enterprises/Undertakings even though on temporary or contractual basis would be unjustifiable inasmuch as they are also engaged to discharge the,,,,,
public duties and nothing else. In view thereof, why such persons, who are discharging public duties and have the requisite experience in the subject",,,,,
field/discipline while working in such Public Sector Enterprises/Undertakings and hold an Executive post, be excluded or be declared ineligible only on",,,,,
the premise of having gained experience on being engaged on contract basis rather than being engaged on permanent or temporary basis, cannot be",,,,,
understood. Actually, it loses significance. In any case, they cannot be treated to be at par with the Private Sector employees to attract the stipulation",,,,,
of drawing minimum CTC of Rs.11 lacs p.a. as on the cut-off date and be declared ineligible on such count.,,,,,
To have better understanding of the true import of the term 'Executive Cadre' used in the advertisement, one may also advert to Regulation (4) of",,,,,
the Regulations, 2003 and/or the proposed Regulations, 2005 inasmuch as these are the own Regulations of AAI and reflect its conscience on the",,,,,
given subject. These Regulations broadly categorise the posts in AAI in two categories viz. Executive and Non-Executive. As per these Regulations,",,,,,
the Executive posts begin with the post of Junior Executive and equivalent with pay-scale of Rs.8,600-250-14,600 (level - E1) and go upto the post of",,,,,
Executive Director and equivalent in the pay-scale of Rs.23,750-600-28,550 (level - E9). Such classification of posts by AAI by itself shows that the",,,,,
posts of Junior Executive and equivalent thereof upto the level of Executive Director and equivalent, to be co-related with the pay-scales attached",,,,,
thereto, form the respective cadres. In view thereof, the petitioners, who are working in Government of India Enterprises/Undertakings and have the",,,,,
minimum 5 years' work experience in the required discipline, being declared ineligible on the premise of not drawing minimum CTC of 11 lacs p.a.,",,,,,
which is a stipulation for private sector candidates, without any consideration of their such material credentials of gaining experience on an Executive",,,,,
post or not, in the considered opinion of the Court, is wholly unjustifiable. Suffice to say, as per the impugned list of not eligible candidates for the post",,,,,
of Manager (Electronics), which forms part of the petitions of Dhananjay & Ors. and Arvind, as Annexures 'P-5' and 'P-10' respectively, they were",,,,,
declared ineligible only on account of 'less than 11 lacs CTC' and nothing else. Such decision, the Court has no hesitation to observe, is wholly",,,,,
erroneous. Though, in the submissions of Mr. Rai, the said petitioners do not qualify to be considered in the Executive Cadre in the absence of the",,,,,
required pay-scale they should have had, such submission of Mr.Rai is unfounded. It is not the ground given in the impugned list for their rejection.",,,,,
Even the affidavits filed by AAI do not say so. The short affidavit dated 18.09.2019 and the counter-affidavit dated 14.10.2019 filed by AAI, would",,,,,
show that the only ground for declaring the petitioners ineligible was that they were not drawing 11 lacs CTC, which was the criterion laid for the",,,,,
employees of private sector rather than for Government, Semi-Government or Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises. For instance, as for the",,,,,
petitioner no.1â€" Dhananjay Kumar Mishra, the AAI in its counter-affidavit, does not dispute that he was working in the Executive Cadre. Relevant",,,,,
to the context, para 1(a) of the preliminary submissions in the counter-affidavit of AAI, reads, as under:",,,,,
The Petitioner no.1 joined Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., on 10.02.2015 in Executive Cadre as Assistant Manager (Electronics and",,,,,
Communication) on contract basis and the basic pay of the Petitioner was Rs.18,480/- as on 17.05.2019 in the pay scale of (Rs. 16,400 â€"",,,,,
40,500/-) Grade E-1 and as per the pay slip for April, 2019, the gross salary of the Petitioner No.1 was Rs.55,699/-.""",,,,,
In AAI, the Executive posts begin with the post of Junior Executive and equivalent with pay-scale of Rs.8,600-250-14,600 (Level E-1) and,",,,,,
undisputedly, Dhananjay Kr. Mishra was in Executive Cadre. In the given factual conspectus, the AAI cannot derive any advantage from the decision",,,,,
of the ld. Single Judge of this Court in Umesh Verma's case (supra). In that case, the petitioner had failed to appear to make any submissions and",,,,,
from the material on record, the Court noted that in Central Government the Executive Cadre commences from a pay-scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- and",,,,,
in N.T.P.C.â€"where the said petitioner was seeking employment, commenced at Rs.10,700-15,750/-, whereas, while working as an Engineering",,,,,
Asstt. with Doordarshan, his pay-scale was Rs.5000-8000/-, and therefore, the said petitioner could not have been placed in the Executive Cadre with",,,,,
Doordarshan.,,,,,
As for the plea raised on behalf of Dhananjay & Ors that three of the persons namely, Anurag Kumar, Pragya Patel and Arun Kumar, who were",,,,,
not having the requisite minimum 5 years' experience were invited by AAI for interview, whereas, few of the petitioners similarly placed were not,",,,,,
and therefore, the similarly placed persons are required to be treated equally, the plea so raised is misconceived. No legal right flows on negative",,,,,
equality.,,,,,
As regards the contention of Mr. Bhardwaj that those of the candidates, who are working in the capacity of Professors/Lecturers etc. also fall",,,,,
within the Executive category, in the considered view of the Court, is well merited. As long as the criterion of work experience in Executive post is",,,,,
fulfilled, it does not matter as to the other background of gaining such experience unless the Regulations of the AAI specifically prescribe so.",,,,,
Jayalakshmi, undisputedly, did not fulfill the condition of 'Not less than 11 lacs CTC p.a.' while working in a private sector. Her being declared",,,,,
ineligible for selection to the given post therefore, cannot be faulted with. As for her plea that as on the date of verification of documents after the on-",,,,,
line examination, she was drawing a CTC of more than Rs.11 lacs p.a., would not make any difference. As per stipulation laid down in the",,,,,
advertisement inviting applications, she undisputedly, did not qualify. Allowing so, would actually tantamount to changing the rules of the game for",,,,,
selection to a public post and that is not permissible. It has been so held by the Courts repeatedly. The Supreme Court in 'Union of India & Ors. vs. S.,,,,,
Vinodh Kumar & Ors.' (2007) 8 SCC 100, reiterated as follows:",,,,,
It is also well-settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down",,,,,
therein were not entitled to question the same. [See Munindra Kumar and Ors. v. Rajiv Govil and Ors. MANU/SC/0372/1991 : (1991),,,,,
IILLJ103SC]. [See also Rashmi Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and Ors. MANU/SC/8586/2006 :,,,,,
2006(11)SCALES].""",,,,,
Such is the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Supreme Court in 'Zonal Manager, Bank of India & Ors. vs. Aarya K. Babu & Ors.' (2019) 8 SCC",,,,,
587, relied on by Mr. Rai, ld. Senior Counsel for AAI.",,,,,
It is also a matter of record that Jayalakshmi has approached the Court much after the other petitioners did. It is relevant to note and observe so in,,,,,
view of the fact that the grounds on which she now seeks the condition of 'Not less than 11 lacs CTC p.a.' being declared unconstitutional and being,,,,,
violative of Articles 13(2), 14, 16, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution being unjust, unfair etc. would not be available to her at this stage. Having participated in",,,,,
the selection process, it is not open to her to challenge the criterion laid at the time of inviting applications for appointment. It is not the case that any",,,,,
condition or criterion for selection has come to be changed midstream. Even otherwise, the stipulation of drawal of minimum CTC of Rs.11 lacs p.a.",,,,,
for the candidates coming from private sector, the Court, taking note of the pay scales of employees of Central Government and of the PSUs,",,,,,
especially, the AAI, does not consider it to be unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Stipulation of the kind could be the just manner of filtering the candidates",,,,,
for consideration to the given post. What, according to the petitioner could be the fair criterion for consideration of the private sector employees,",,,,,
Jayalakshmi does not even suggest or indicate. In the given factual conspectus, the Court does not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Muhammed",,,,,
that the condition 'Not less than 11 lacs p.a. CTC for the private sector employees' for the given post was unjust, unfair, arbitrary or discriminatory",,,,,
and violative of Articles 13(2), 14, 16, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution. Reliance placed on the judgments cited by him in the given facts and",,,,,
circumstances is therefore, misconceived and misplaced.",,,,,
At this stage, it would be appropriate to be noted that hearing in the instant petitions concluded by 24.01.2020 and the matters were listed for",,,,,
pronouncement of judgments on 24.02.2020. On this day, the Airport Authority of India (Recruitment and Promotion), Regulations, 2020 in short",,,,,
'Regulations, 2020' published on 12.02.2020 came to the notice of the Court and taking note thereof, the pronouncement was deferred. Having gone",,,,,
through the Regulations, 2020, it appears, the Regulations, 2005 have since got the approval of the Central Government and are so published as 'the",,,,,
Regulations, 2020'. The Regulations, 2020 as such do not bring about any change in the view already expressed by the Court.",,,,,
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of with the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the respondentâ€"AAI to re-consider the",,,,,
candidature of the petitioners employed with Government, Semi-Government or Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises and who fulfill the criterion of",,,,,
qualifications and the experience required for the post of Manager (Electronics) in the light of the foregoing observations made by the Court within,,,,,
eight weeks from today. No order as to costs.,,,,,