Kerala High Court
Subin Michael M vs Airports Authority Of India on 30 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.30044 OF 2019(E)
PETITIONER:
SUBIN MICHAEL M
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.MICHAEL.J., URIYARIKUNNU HOUSE, PUTHIYATHURA,
PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 926.
BY ADVS.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SHRI.JOBY D JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:-
1 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SOUTHERN REGION, CHENNAI AIRPORTS, CHENNAI-600 027.
2 REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SOUTHERN REGION, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
CHENNAI AIRPORTS, CHENNAI-600 027.
3 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(HR),
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SOUTHERN REGION,
CHENNAI AIRPORTS, CHENNAI-600 027.
4 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(HR),
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SOUTHERN REGION,
CHENNAI AIRPORTS, CHENNAI-600 027.
R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
OTHER PRESENT:-
SRI. N.N. SUGUNAPALAN-SR. FOR RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08-03-2021, THE COURT ON 30-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of March 2021
1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari; or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, to quash Exhibit P-7 order issued by the 4th respondent.
(ii) To declare that the petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as
Junior Assistant (Fire Service) under the 1st respondent.
(iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner
as Junior Assistant (Fire Service) without any further delay."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It is contended that the petitioner had participated in the
selection for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) under
the 1st respondent. He was successful in the selection and the
selection committee recommended his candidature. However,
the pendency of a criminal case was noted by the petitioner in
his application form as well as declaration. The petitioner
was, therefore, not appointed. Thereafter, the criminal case
ended in acquittal and the petitioner informed the respondents
of the same and sought an appointment. However, by Ext.P7
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
order, his request was rejected on the ground that the
petitioner had been selected for training, but he failed to
submit the character and antecedents certificate within time.
It was further informed that the panel validity period was over
and the petitioner's request for appointment cannot be
considered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by Ext.P5
judgment dated 30.04.2019, the petitioner was released on
probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders
Act. It is stated that by Ext.P8 judgment, in Criminal Appeal
No.105/2019 dated 30.01.2020, the conviction and sentence
were set aside and the petitioner was acquitted. It is
contended that the petitioner had voluntarily disclosed the
pendency of the criminal case against him and that there is,
absolutely, no justification in not considering him for
appointment, once he has been acquitted in the criminal case.
5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the
respondents. It is stated that based on the selection, the
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
petitioner had been selected and nominated for basic training
course at Calcutta for the period from 17/08/2016 to
15/12/2016 by Ext.R1(a). It is stated that the petitioner would
be entitled for appointment, only if he is declared fit by the
police authorities for which the candidate is required to
submit attestation forms as per para 6.10 (a) of the Airport
Authority of India (General Conditions of Services and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003. Thereafter,
the appointment is subject to satisfactory verification of
character and antecedents and the appointee being found
medically fit. Ext.R1(b) is the Regulations.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner had informed about the
pendency of the criminal case and had not submitted the
attestation forms, as required. Therefore, the petitioner was
not sent for training and the selection was withheld by
Ext.R1(e) order dated 04.08.2016. It is submitted that the
petitioner was clearly informed that his selection as Junior
Assistant (Fire Service) was cancelled for want of submission
of requisite documents. It is stated that the panel validity
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
period is over and the petitioner's candidature cannot be
considered for appointment on the basis of his inclusion in the
earlier selection. It is stated that the petitioner had
participated in the selection as a reserved candidate. His
deputation on training stood cancelled by Ext.R1(e).
Thereafter, the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed
was notified as unfilled backlog vacancy and a fresh
notification was issued and selection was conducted by
Ext.R1(f) notification. It is submitted that by the time the
petitioner's appeal was allowed that he was acquitted by
Ext.P8, his appointment already stood cancelled, which was
not challenged by him and the post to which he had been
appointed had been re-notified and steps had been taken to fill
up the post as well.
7. Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the
petitioner had admittedly participated in the selection for the
post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) conducted in the year
2015. By Ext.P1, he was informed that he was successful in
the written test held on 03.04.2016 and was required to
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
participate in the further process of selection. By Ext.P2,
dated 08.07.2016, the petitioner was informed that he was
selected as Junior Assistant (Fire Service) trainee
provisionally, and nominated for basic training course.
However, by Ext.P3 dated 04.08.2016, petitioner was informed
that as a person facing criminal case, he was not eligible for
Government appointments and that his selection is withheld,
the petitioner was required to inform the outcome of the
pending case for further action. Thereafter, by Ext.P5
judgment, the petitioner was found guilty but released on
probation. The petitioner had made a request before the
respondents which was answered by Ext.P7 stating that since
he had failed to submit the character and antecedents
certificate from the Government, which was a pre-condition
for confirmation of appointment going by the regulations. His
appointment itself was bad and the panel validity period had
already expired. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner
was acquitted by Ext.P8 judgment dated 30.01.2020 and,
therefore, he is entitled and eligible for appointment.
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
8. Having considered the contentions advanced, I find that the
appointment issued to the petitioner was specifically subject to
the condition that the attestation forms is to be filled up and
returned to the respondents without fail. The petitioner
apparently had not submitted the attestation forms duly filled
up. Though the petitioner has a specific case that he could
have been kept away from service only if he stood convicted of
offences involving moral turpitude, it is apparent that he did
not challenge the orders issued by the authorities cancelling
his deputation for training and withholding his appointment. It
is much later, only by Ext.P8, dated 30.01.2020 that the
petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. The petitioner
approached the respondents seeking appointment apparently
only after Ext.P5 judgment that is., by Ext.P6 request dated
07.06.2019. It appears from the pleadings on record that by
the time, the validity of the panel in which the petitioner was
included had expired and the appointment of the petitioner
stood cancelled. It is contended in the counter affidavit filed
by the respondents that the vacancy to which the petitioner
had been appointed was also re-notified in 2018.
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
9. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the
decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner
will not help the petitioner, since he did not approach this
Court at the appropriate time. The petitioner has no
contention that he had submitted the required documents and
attestation forms at the time of his appointment. He also did
not challenge the withholding of his appointment and the
cancellation of the deputation for training.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the
prayer sought for cannot be allowed. This writ petition fails
and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
04.08.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE COCHIN PORT TRUST DATED 5.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC
NO.976/2014.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
07.06.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
24.09.2019 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CRL APPEAL NO-
105/19.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 08.07.2016 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R1B TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INIDA (GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
AND REMUNERATION OF EMPLOYEES)
REGULATIONS, 2003.
EXHIBIT R1C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.07.2016
EXHIBIT R1D TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
19.07.2016 OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE KANJIRAKKULAM POLICE STATION
W.P.(C).No.30044/2019
EXHIBIT R1E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 04/08/2016 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R1F TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
NOTIFICATION ISSUED VIDE ADVT NO
SR/01/2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY OF INDIA
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE
