Telangana High Court
The Air Ports Authority Of India vs Bhgyaraj .A on 25 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.290 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice)
This intra-Court appeal assails order dated 16.02.2012
passed in W.P.No.2235 of 2011, whereby the Writ Petition filed by
the respondent herein was allowed and he was treated to be
eligible candidate for the purpose of submitting his application for
the post of Junior Assistant [Fire Service (FS)].
Factual Backdrop:-
2. The respondent is possessing qualification of 10 + 3 year
diploma from the State Board of Technical Education and Training
in Mechanical. He submitted candidature for the post of Junior
Assistant (FS) in the appellants' organization.
3. As per the advertisement, the appellants opined that the
respondent did not possess the requisite educational/academic
qualifications namely 10 + 2 or equivalent from recognized
University/Board as on 13.08.2010. Hence, his candidature was
not considered for recruitment.
4. The instant Writ Petition was filed by the Writ
Petitioner/respondent herein seeking permission to allow him to
participate in the selection process in the teeth of G.O.Ms.No.112,
dated 27.10.2001, issued by the State Government, which
projected by contending that three years diploma course is
equivalent to 10 + 2 or intermediate. Learned Single Judge while
issuing notice granted ex parte interim relief to the respondent
herein directing the appellants/employer to permit the respondent
to appear for the written examination and consider his case at par
with other candidates. In obedience of the Court order, the
appellants permitted the respondent to participate in the written
test and also permitted him to appear for training by virtue of
interim relief granted in W.P.M.P.No.23667 of 2011.
5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by order
dated 16.02.2012 allowed the Writ Petition and held that in view
of G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001, the diploma of the
respondent shall be treated as equivalent to intermediate.
Contention of the appellants:
6. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the order of the
learned Single Judge by contending that G.O.Ms.No.112, dated
27.10.2001 is issued by the State Government and is not binding
on the appellants, who are a Public Sector Undertaking
constituted under Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. A
conjoint reading of Sections 10 and 41 of the said Act shows that
only the competent authority can fix conditions of appointment for
its employees. The appellants' organization falls under Entry 29
List-I of Schedule VII of the Constitution. No reliance was placed
in Writ Affidavit about any constitutional provision. The
advertisement was crystal clear and the prescribed qualification
does not include the qualification of diploma. G.O.Ms.No.112,
dated 27.10.2001, on which reliance is placed, even otherwise
talks about equivalence of qualification for the purpose of
appointment on compassionate grounds.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the
judgments of Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad 1 and Maharashtra Public Service Commission
v. Sandeep Shriram Warade 2, to bolster the contention that
employer is the best judge to prescribe the qualifications and
decide the aspect of equivalence. It is not within the province of
the Courts to decide the question of equivalence and qualification
etc,. Learned Single Judge overstepped the jurisdiction and
erroneously relied on G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001, while
allowing the Writ Petition.
(2019) 2 SCC 404
(2019) 6 SCC 362
Contention of the respondent:-
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in this Writ
Appeal, the appellants/employer prayed for an interim relief and
the said prayer made in W.A.M.P.No.568 of 2012 was dismissed
on 22.03.2012 by this Court. This order declining interim relief
was unsuccessfully challenged in SLP No.12217 of 2012, which
came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 13.04.2012. In
furtherance thereof, the respondent was appointed and working
with the appellants satisfactorily.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent filed additional material
papers and relied on certain documents. On a specific query from
this Bench, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no
additional counter or response is required and these material
papers can be looked into.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent apprised that
respondent was appointed on 22.04.2013. Although, this order
was made subject to the outcome of the present Writ Appeal, the
fact remains that the respondent has already worked for more
than 12 years by now.
11. Heavy reliance is placed on Advertisement No.1/SR/2013 for
the same posts i.e., Junior Assistant (FR) issued in the next year
after the appointment of the respondent i.e., 2013. The
qualification which was subject matter of discussion before the
Writ Court reads thus:
II Educational I. A pass in 10+2 or equivalent from recognized
Qualification University/Board as on 13/08/2010.
II. Should possess valid heavy driving license as
on 13/08/2010.
Desirable ITI/Sub-officer Course/Experience in any Fire
Service/BTC Course from AAI Fire Training
Establishment.
12. The qualifications in Advertisement No.1/SR/2013 for the
same post reads thus:
Qualification i) 10th Pass + 3 years' approved regular Diploma
in Mechanical/Automobile/Fire with minimum
50% marks (OR)
ii) 12th Pass (Regular Study) with 50% marks.
13. A comparative study of the above shows that the
qualifications of the respondent i.e., Diploma in Mechanical
became an essential qualification in the next advertisement.
Thus, in this backdrop, it cannot be said that the respondent is
not having requisite or equivalent qualification. If the qualification
of the respondent was totally foreign to the requisite qualification,
there was no occasion for the appellants to prescribe this
qualification in the next advertisement i.e., Advertisement
No.1/SR/2013. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondent
was further promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (FS) on
27.07.2018. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior
Executive (Air Traffic Control) on 28.09.2018. Such promotions
were earned by the respondent because of his sincere and
dedicated services. The equity is in favour of the respondent. If
the Writ Appeal is allowed, it would cause great prejudice and
hardship to the respondent.
14. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on
the judgment of Supreme Court in Sajid Khan v. L.
Rahmathullah 3 and recent order of Division Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.10744 of 2023 and batch, dated 19.11.2024, to bolster
the submission that the services of respondent may be saved.
15. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above. No other point is pressed.
FINDINGS:-
16. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated
27.08.2010 makes it clear that only candidates with 10 + 2 or
equivalent were eligible to submit their candidatures. We find
substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellants. In view of the judgment in Zahoor Ahmad Rather
and Maharashtra Public Service Commission (both supra), it is
2025 SCC OnLine SC 376
within the domain/province of the employer to prescribe the
qualifications. The employer is best suited to decide the nature of
qualification and eligibility etc., considering the nature of job. The
Courts have no expertise on this aspect and cannot sit over it. It
is equally settled that decision on the question of equivalence is
also within the domain/province of employer. We find no
difficulty in accepting this contention and therefore, we have no
cavil of doubt that when the respondent submitted his
candidature based on three years diploma, he could not satisfy
the eligibility/qualification as per the advertisement in question.
17. In our view, the executive instruction issued by the State
Government was not binding on the appellants. More-so, when it
was not relating to the appointment in general and was confined
to compassionate appointment.
18. Interesting conundrum is whether while holding that the
learned Single Judge was not justified in considering the State
Government circular and directing to consider the appoint of the
respondent, whether it will be proper at this stage to allow the
appeal in toto and deprive the respondent from fruits of litigation.
More-so, when petitioner has not only completed 12 years of
service, he was promoted twice during this period. It cannot be
forgotten that the appellants unsuccessfully challenged the
impugned order passed by this Court before the Supreme Court.
In this backdrop, the quagmire is whether the services of the
respondent can be saved.
19. The subsequent Advertisement No.1/SR/2013 shows that
Diploma in Mechanical became the essential qualification for the
same post. Thus, we find substance in the argument of the
learned counsel for the respondent that it cannot be said that his
qualification was totally extraneous/foreign to the requirement.
Had it been so, the appellants would not have changed in the very
next year, the qualifications by inserting the qualification which
the respondent is having. Apart from this, the employee has been
promoted twice by the appellants. Thus, we are of the opinion
that in the peculiar facts of this case, at this stage, it will not be
proper to disturb the appointment of the respondent. Thus, while
holding that legally the stand taken by the appellants is correct, it
will not be proper to take away the livelihood of the respondent
after about 12 years. In Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West
Bengal 4, the Supreme Court upon considering its several
judgments opined that it would be inequitable if appointment of
candidates working for more than 10 years is set aside. Hence,
(2009) 1 SCC 768
appointments were not disturbed. Similar view was taken in
M.A.Hameed v. State of Andhra Pradesh 5.
20. In, Champalal Binani v. CIT 6, it was held that the Court
may not strike down the illegal order although it would be lawful to
do so. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to extend the
benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Similar view is
taken by Supreme Court in M.P.Mittal v. State of Haryana 7.
21. Following the aforesaid dicta we are inclined to save the
appointment of the respondent. As a consequence, while holding
that legal stand taken by the appellants is justifiable, no actual
relief is due to the appellants in the peculiar factual backdrop of
this matter. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
_______________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
______________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date:25.03.2025.
GVR
(2001) 9 SCC 261
(1971) 3 SCC 201
(1984) 4 SCC 371
