Lce on the judgments of strpreme court in zahoot Ahmad Rather v. sheikh lmtiyaz Ahmadr and Maharashtra public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shrira

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P'B' VIJAY KUMAR The Gourt made the following: JUDGMENT TIIE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA UIRIT APPEAL No.290 0F 2012 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice) This intra-court appeal assails order dated 16.02.2.012 passed in W.p.No.2235 of 2011, whereby the Writ petirion filed by the respondent herein was a_llowed and he was treated to be eligible candidate for the purpose of submitting his application for the post of Junior Assistant [Fire Seruice (FS)]. Factual Backdrop:- 2. The respondent is possessing qualification of 1O + 3 ,"* diploma from th'e State Board of rechnical Education and rraining in Mechanical. He submitted candidature for the post of Junior Assistant (FS) ir.;. the appellants, organization. .) As per thr: advertisement, the appellants opined that the respondent did not possess the requisite educationalT,academic qualifications namely lO + 2 o, University/Boarcl as on 13.0g.20 10. equivalent from recognized Hence, his candidature was not considered for recruitment.

4. The instant Writ petition was filed by the Writ Petitioner/respondent herein seeking permission to allorv him to participate in the selection process in the teeth of G.O.Ms.N o.l12, 2 dated 27.10.2001, issued bY the projected by contending that three State Government, which years diPloma course is Learned Single Judge while equivalent to 1O + 2 or intermediate' issuing notice grant ed 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 pat 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 aflowed the Writ Petition and held that in view of G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27'lO'2OOl' the diploma of the respondent shall be treated as equivalent to intermediate' nts: Coatention of theap 6. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the order of the learned Single Judge by contending that G.O'Ms'No'112' dated 27.lO.2OOl is issued by the State Government and is not binding are a Public Sector Undertaking on the aPPellants, who AuthoritY of India Act, 1994' A 1O and 41 of the said Act shows that constituted under AirPorts conjoint reading of Sections \ t J only the comp.tent authorit5r ca, fix conditions of appointment for its employees. The appellants, organization falls under Entr5r 29 List-I of Schedule VII of the constitution. No relia,ce was placed in Writ Affid,evit about any constitutional provision. .The advertisement u,as crystal clear and the prescribed qualification does not inciude the qualification of diploma. G.O.Ms.No.l12, dated 27.10.2Cr01, on which reliarce is placed, even otherwise talks about equivalence of qualification for the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliar:Lce on the judgments of strpreme court in zahoot Ahmad Rather v. sheikh lmtiyaz Ahmadr and Maharashtra public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade2, to bolster the contention that employer is the best judge to prescribe the qualifications and decide the aspe<:t of equivalence. It is not within the province of the Courts to decide the question of equivalence ald quralification etc,. Learned Single Judge overstepped the jurisdiction and erroneously relied on G.O.Ms.No. 112, dated 27.IO.2OOI, while allowing the Writ petition. 'lzorey z scc ao+ ' 1zo re; o scc :oz I 4 !\ ntiotr ofthe res dent:-

8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in this Writ Appeal, the appellants/employer prayed for al interim relief and the said prayer made in W'A'M'P'No'568 of 2O12 was dismissed on 22.03-2012 by this Court' This order declining interim relief was unsuccessfully challenged in SLP No'72217 of 2012' which carne to be dismissed as withdrawn on 13'O4'2012' In furtheralce thereof, the respondent was appointed aI1d working with the appellants satisfactorily

9. Learned cotlnsel for the respondent hled 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 carl 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/2O13 for the same posts i.e., Junior Assistant (FR) issued in the next year ( ( 5 after the appointment of the respondent 2013. The qualification which was subject matter of discussion before the Writ Court readsr thus:

1.e II Educational Qualilication Desirable A I S U 1n vers1 I ShU ldu 3I 8 0 ITI/Sub-officer Service/BTC C Establishment. + 2 ro n o1 Board AS on 31 p Ss v o SES 2o 1 o u V eal 08 a tn .from re o 02 01 rd v nI gnizgd CC n SC Sa oC urse ou ers E"p m e er1 n Ce AAI F rn any Fire re Training

12. The quaiifir:ations in Advertisement No.1/SR/2Oli3 for the same post reads l,hus: Qualification .) +SSPa I arm kS oR oth1 s a eM hc anical A tou m ( I ) nI 5 o/oo ii) 12tt Pass (Regular Study) with 5O%o rnarks. ob e F e1r DI mlo P tw1 h m1n I a um m 13' A comparatirre study of the above shows that the qualifications of the respondent i.e., Diploma in Mechanical became an esserltiar qua-lification in the next advertisement. Thus, in this bacl<drop, it cannot be said that the respondent is not having requisite or equivalent quarification. If the qualification of the respondent u,as totally foreign to the requisite qualification, there was no oc:casion for the appellants to prescribe this qualifrcation in the next advertisement i.e., Advertisement No.l/SR/2013. Frrrthermore, it is submitted that the respondent was further promoted to the post of Senior Assistalt 1.FS) on \ 6

27.O7.2OI8. Thereafter' he was promoted to the post of Junior Executive (Air Trafhc 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 relialce on the judgment of SuPreme Court ln Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullahs and recent order of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1O744 of 2023 and batch, dated 19' ll'2024, to bolster the submission that the services of respondent may be saved'

15. The Parties have confined their a-rguments to the extent indicated above. No other point is pressed' FINDINGS:- 16. The qualffication prescribed' in the advertisement dated 27.O8.2O1O makes it clear that only candidates with 10 + 2 or equivalent were eligible to submit their candidatures' We hnd substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the judgment in Za}oot Ahmad Rather and Maharashtra Public Service Commission (both supra)' it is r 2025 SCC online sc 376 ( 7 within the d,tmain/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 carnot sit over it. It rs equally settled that decision on the question of equivalence is also within tl-re domain/province of employer. Sre find no difficulty in accepting this contention and therefore, rve have no cavil of doutrt that when the respondent submitted his candidature ba sed on three years diproma, he courd not satisfy the eligibility/ qrralification as per the advertisement in question. 17. In our vieu,. the executive instruction issued by the State Government war; not binding on the appellants. More_so, when it was not relating to the appointment in general and was confined to compassionat3 appointment.

18. Interesting conund.rum is whether while holding that the learned Single .luclge was not justified in considering rthe State Government circrrlar and directing to consider the appoint of the respondent, wher-her it will be proper at this stage to zrllow the appeal in toto anri deprive the respondent from fruits of litigation. More-so, when Fretitioner has not only completed 12 years of service, he was promoted twice during this period. It czmnot be II 8 forgotten that the appellants unsuccessfully challenged the impugned order passed by this Court before the Supreme Court' In this backdroP, tl:le quagmtre 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 qualihcation for the same post. Thus, we hnd 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 requiiement' Had it been so, the appellants would not have chalged in the very next year, the qualilications by inserting the qualihcation 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 tie proper to take away the livelihood of the respondent after about 12 years. In Tridip Kumar Dingal v' State of West Bengal+, the Supreme Court upon considering its several judgments opined that it would be inequitable if appointment of candidates working for more than 1O years is set aside' Hence' ( n (2009) I scc 768 ( L 9 appolntments .lvere not disturbed. Similar view was taken in M.A.Hameed v, State of Andhra pradeshs.

20. In, Champalal Binani v. CIT6, it was held that the Court mag not strike ctotun the illegal ord.er although it wotuld. be lawful to do so. In a givr:n case, the High court may refuse to extend the benelit of a disr:retionar5r relief to the applicant. Similar view is taken by Suprente Court in M.p.Mittal v. State of Haryanaz.

27. Following :he aforesai d. dicta we are inclined to save the appointment of l-he respondent. As a consequence, while holding tlrat legal stand taken by the appellants is justifiabte, ,o 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 irs to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE GOPY// SD/-K.SAILESHI OINT REGIS SECTION OFFICER /l To,

1. The chairman, Air Ports Authority of lndia, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, New_Delhi. i: iii; nirport Auifror.ity of tndia ,Regional Execuiive Director, Southem Region, g. inJ Aiiport Director, Airport Authority of lndia Hyderabad Air Port, Begumpet, Chennai - 27. Hvderabad oir" cC to Ms. D=EPTI ANAND vARlKUTl, Advocate [oPUC] . One CC to Ms.P. ll VIJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD Copies w 4 5 6 BM 5 (200 t) e s(.c 26 t u 1t9zry: scc tor '1to8a; a scc :z r HIGH COURT DATED:2 St03t2O2S JUDGMENT WA.No.290 of 2012 t J -.==::=:\- rHE s i4rI \ 0 I APB 20?5 '6 >z a \..?t 0I.'. * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS q c"d4 t"t"