Delhi High Court
Subhash Chandra Sharma vs Union Of India & Anr. on 30 January, 2020
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 30.01.2020
+ W.P.(C) 10812/2017
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Adv. with
Ms.Himanshi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for
the following prayers:-
"(i) Give effect to the recommendations of the various
Parliamentary Committee Reports being the 218th Report
of the Demands for Grants (2015-16) of Ministry of Civil
Aviation, the 230th Report of issues related to security at
Airports in India and the 231st Report of the Demands for
Grants (2016-17) of Ministry of Civil Aviation.
(ii) Direct the respondents to immediately develop cadre
based recruitments in BCAS from the lowest level to the
highest level in the larger interest of public safety.
Aviation security, National security and public interest
which has been deliberately overlooked by vested
interests and Government in
past 40 years or so.
(iii) Quash the existing Recruitment Rules and direct the
Respondents to formulate and/or amend the proposed,
fresh and existing Recruitment Rules as notified in order
to comply with the directions of the various
parliamentary committee reports.
(iv) Quash the Appointments made pursuant to the
existing Recruitment Rules and direct the Respondents to
make fresh appointments pursuant to the Fresh/Amended
Recruitment Rules as prayed for in the present Public
Interest Litigation.
(v) Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this
petition has been preferred for quashing of existing Recruitment Rules
of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and also the appointment made
pursuant to the existing Recruitment Rules. However, the concerned
appointees are not joined as party respondents in this writ petition.
3. It appears that in pursuance of the Chicago Convention signed
in the year 1944, Mr.B.P. Pandey Committee was constituted and
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security was set up in 1987 for compliance
of India‟s obligation of Chicago Convention. It is noted that Section
4 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 empowers the Central Government to
make rules necessary for carrying out the Chicago Convention as
amended from time to time.
4. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security is an expert body
advising the Government on planning and co-ordination of Aviation
Security matters and its recommendations are being implemented by
the Government for the safety and security of the persons who are
travelling in the airport and the aircraft itself.
5. This petition has been preferred by a retired employee of the
Ministry of Civil Aviation, challenging the Recruitment Rules of
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security („BCAS‟). No representation has
been preferred to the respondents before filing this Public Interest
Litigation. Moreover, the prayer for quashing of the appointments in
pursuance to the existing Recruitment Rules is without joining the
concerned appointees as the party respondent. The Recruitment Rules
have been enacted in consultation with Department of Personnel &
Training and Union Public Service Commission and the same have
already been uploaded on the website of the respondents.
6. Looking to the prayers in this writ petition especially prayer
(ii), the petitioner is suggesting to develop a cadre based recruitment
in Bureau of Civil Aviation Security.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
recruitment rules are already in existence. Policy decision has also
been taken by the respondents to recruit the persons in BCAS in
accordance with the said rules as presently 23 personnel are on
deputation from IPS cadre.
8. Thus, if any individual‟s appointment is to be challenged, the
same can be done by way of separate writ petition but not as a general
public interest litigation. We, therefore, see no reason to quash all the
appointments made in pursuance to the Recruitment Rules of Bureau
of Civil Aviation Security.
9. Prayer (iii) of the writ petition is about the amendment in the
Rules. It ought to be kept in mind that the Courts cannot suggest the
amendment in the enactment or the rules as it is the duty of the
respondents to enact the Rules and Courts are to check the violation of
the Rules. As per the theory of Positivism, the Court has to check the
"law as it is" and not as the "law as it ought to be". Only in
exceptional cases, to fill up the gap, the Court can enact the law.
Exception cannot be converted into rule. As and when such violation
of Recruitment Rules is brought to the notice of the Courts in any
individual case, the same can be considered after hearing the parties.
Hence, we see no reason to entertain this public interest litigation.
10. In fact this is not a Public Interest Litigation but in fact a
Publicity Interest Litigation. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security is an
independent body created by the respondents and the reports which
are referred in this writ petition have already been considered and
sufficiently given effect to by the respondents. The petitioner should
have kept the same in mind before indulging in frivolous litigation by
filing a PIL seeking directions against an organization as how to carry
out its functions.
11. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs of
₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to be deposited with the
Delhi State Legal Services Authority. This amount shall be utilized
for the programmes "Access to Justice".
12. A copy of this order will be sent to the Member Secretary,
Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Central Office, Patiala House
Courts Complex, New Delhi - 110001 for information.
13. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JANUARY 30, 2020
aa
