Mr. Alok Raj and Mr. Baliram Kumar Thakur, Advocates v. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Judgment

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the cancellation of her candidature for appointment as a Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control) in the respondent - Airports Authority of India [“AAI”] in the Other Backward Classes-Non Creamy Layer [“OBC-NCL”] category. A. Facts:

2. By way of advertisement No. 05/2023 issued on 14.10.2023, AAI invited applications for 496 vacancies in the post of Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control). 140 vacancies were reserved for OBC-NCL category. The instructions, which were part of the recruitment notification, included the following provision with regard to the OBC Category: “7. IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS: Signature Not Verified Signed By:UMANG KHANNA Signing Date:26.04.2025 17:23:49 W.P.(C) 17783/2024 Page 1 of 8 (iv) OBC Certificate:- Candidates applying against vacancies reserved for OBC category should note that at the time of Application Verification, they have to produce a valid OBC (NCL) Certificate issued during Financial Year 2023-24 in the format for appointment to posts under the Government of India, issued by the Competent Authority, in support of their belonging to OBC community in the Central list of OBC and to prove that they do not belong to "Creamy Layer" of the OBCs. A declaration shall also be submitted by the candidate before his/her appointment that he/she does not belong to the Creamy Layer of OBC. OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) Certificate for admission to educational purposes will not be considered.”1

3. As is commonly found in such advertisements, it also contained specific instructions that candidates should satisfy themselves, with regard to fulfilment of the eligibility criteria, and that they were in possession of documents to demonstrate fulfilment of the said criteria.

4. The petitioner made an application for appointment to the said post in the OBC-NCL Category, and participated in a computer-based test [“CBT”]. She was shortlisted for verification, medical examination and other formalities.

5. The petitioner appeared for document verification on 25.02.2024. In support of her claim for reservation under the OBC-NCL category, she submitted two OBC certificates, dated 13.01.2020 and 06.12.2022, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sanganer District, Jaipur. Both the certificates were applicable only for employment the State Government.

6. Finding that these certificates did not fulfil the criteria mentioned in Clause 7(iv) of the advertisement, AAI permitted the petitioner to submit the requisite certificate within seven days thereafter. The petitioner submitted an undertaking to this effect, in which it was stated 1 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:UMANG KHANNA Signing Date:26.04.2025 17:23:49 W.P.(C) 17783/2024 Page 2 of 8 that she had not brought some original documents, including a “Valid Caste Certificate for OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) (issued during F.Y. 2023-2024], in the format prescribed for Recruitment to Central Govt. Services.”2. She sought permission to attend the application verification on 25.02.2024, subject to the condition that she would submit the relevant documents in original within seven days, failing which her candidature would be treated as cancelled.

7. By an e-mail dated 29.02.2024, the petitioner submitted various further documents, including an OBC Certificate dated 27.02.2024, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sanganer District, Jaipur. This certificate was, unfortunately, again valid only for State Government services.

8. By an e-mail communication dated 10.04.2024, AAI informed the petitioner that the certificate was valid for recruitment only to State Government services, whereas the format required was for recruitment to Central Government services. Her candidature was, therefore, cancelled, as it was stated that she is not eligible for the recruitment process. A revised result of the CBT was then declared.

9. The petitioner thereafter, by an e-mail dated 02.12.2024, submitted an OBC certificate dated 18.11.2024 issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sanganer District, Jaipur, which deals with employment under the Government of India, and sought review of her candidature. Her request was not considered favourably, and AAI issued a provisional selection list on 17.12.2024. 2 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:UMANG KHANNA Signing Date:26.04.2025 17:23:49 W.P.(C) 17783/2024 Page 3 of 8 B. Submissions:

10. Mr. Alok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was unaware of the distinction between an OBC certificate for the purpose of Central Government recruitment and State Government recruitment. She, therefore, overlooked this distinction while submitting the certificates in question. He submits that such a trivial error ought not to jeopardise the petitioner’s employment, having otherwise succeeded in her application on merit. Mr. Raj cites the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board3 and Karn Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors4.

11. Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel for AAI, on the other hand, submits that the instructions in the advertisement were clear – the certificate required was for recruitment to Central Government services, as AAI is a statutory authority of the Central Government. When the discrepancy in the petitioner’s documentation was noticed, she was granted an opportunity to remedy it, but failed to do so. He submits that no relaxation, in these circumstances, is warranted, as it would constitute a departure from the conditions of the recruitment notification. Such a course is impermissible in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.5 and Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors6. He also cites the judgments of this Court in EDEM Sanketh v. Union of India & Ors.7 and Mohit Sharma

10. Mr. Alok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was unaware of the distinction between an OBC certificate for the purpose of Central Government recruitment and State Government recruitment. She, therefore, overlooked this distinction while submitting the certificates in question. He submits that such a trivial error ought not to jeopardise the petitioner’s employment, having otherwise succeeded in her application on merit. Mr. Raj cites the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board3 and Karn Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors4.

11. Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel for AAI, on the other hand, submits that the instructions in the advertisement were clear – the certificate required was for recruitment to Central Government services, as AAI is a statutory authority of the Central Government. When the discrepancy in the petitioner’s documentation was noticed, she was granted an opportunity to remedy it, but failed to do so. He submits that no relaxation, in these circumstances, is warranted, as it would constitute a departure from the conditions of the recruitment notification. Such a course is impermissible in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.5 and Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors6. He also cites the judgments of this Court in EDEM Sanketh v. Union of India & Ors.7 and Mohit Sharma