M.K. Prasanna Kumar v Airports Authority of India & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 13035 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** M.K.PRASANNA KUMAR AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE KESAVAN NAIR, JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 111. BY ADV. P.K.RAVI SANKAR 1 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR), RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 2 CHAIRMAN AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 4 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEEE FOR THE SELECTION TO THE POSTS OF JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 5 COORDINATION IN CHARGE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 111. 6 RAKESH BHATNAGAR JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CENTRAL HEADQUARTERS, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003. ## **RESPONDENTS:** W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 2 : 7 DR.GURSEWAK MANISH JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BENGALURU - 560 300. 8 R.S.GOPAKUMAR JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANHAPURAM - 695 008. 9 ADDL.R9: S.K.SRIVASTAVA, GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), CORPORATE HEAD QUARTERS (ASM) RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT NEW DELHI -11003. 10 ADDL.R10: MS. P. THAKUR SINHA, GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), CORPORATE HEAD QUARTERS (FPD) RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT NEW DELHI -11003. 11 ADDL.R11: T.TAMIZH SELVAN, GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), ARIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, DR.BABASAHED AMBEDKAR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NAGPUR - 440005. 12 ADDL.R12: P.V.MAMANIMARAN, GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BENGALURE 560300. 13 ADDL.R13: S.SENTHIL VALAVAN GENERAL MANGER (ATM), AIRPORT DIRECTOR, COIMBATORE AIRPORT, COIMBATORE 641014. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 9 TO 13 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31.08.2022 IN IA 3/2022 BY ADVS. S.MANU K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR P.K.RAVISANKAR BEA MARY BENNY(K/000129/2021) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 3 : ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.** ## **========================= W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 ========================== Dated this the 27[th] day of July, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition was filed by the petitioner while he was working as a Joint General Manager (Air Traffic Management), in the services of the 1[st] respondent – Airports Authority of India (AAI). 2. The AAI notified Ext.P2, calling for candidates among its services to be appointed as the General Manager (ATM), and the petitioner responded, to be consequently subjected to the process of selection. He alleges that, however, even though he obtained highest marks, namely 68, in the Objective Assessment component of the test, he was deliberately granted only five marks in the interview, thus denying him promotion. He thus prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and that he be ordered to be granted promotion with effect from the date on which the 6[th] respondent – who is his immediate junior in the category of Joint General Manager (ATM) – was promoted. 3. I have heard Sri.P.K.Ravi Sankar – learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.S.Manu – learned Standing Counsel for W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 4 : the AAI. 4. In refutation to the assertions of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the AAI conceded that petitioner was awarded 68 marks out of 75 in the Objective Assessment component of the selection; but that he scored very low, namely 5 out of 25, in the interview. He pointed out that petitioner does not have even a whispering case that any of the members of the Selection Committee had any personal _mala fides_ against him; and that he cannot impel such a case also, because, pending this lis, he was promoted as General Manager in the subsequent year. Sri.S.Manu – learned Standing Counsel, then pointed out that members of the Selection Committee were comprised with the Chairman of the AAI and its Board members, and hence, unless there are specific allegations of _mala fides_ against them, the challenge against Ext.P4 is impermissible, particularly when the petitioner himself admits that he was granted only 5 marks in the interview. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. In reply, Sri.P.K.Ravi Sankar – learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the judgment of this Court in **Deepthy Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar of Coop.Societies, Thrissur** W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 5 : **and others [2008 (4) KLT 321]** to drive home the point that, in exceptional circumstances, the principles of _res ipsa loquitor_ would apply, which is to mean that if his client is able to establish that he had been deliberately awarded lower marks in the interview, the selection will have to be reviewed, notwithstanding the fact that no personal _mala fides_ have been alleged. He then invited my attention to page No.8 of the writ petition, to argue that when it comes to the first 5 of the selected candidates, they are ranked exactly in the order of their seniority and that they have been awarded marks in the interview to ensure that the same is not disturbed, while it is added to the marks obtained by them in the Objective Assessment. He argued that, however, when it came to his client, respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 were granted higher marks in the interview, with a deliberate intent to override his client and thus upset his seniority. 6. Sri.P.K.Ravi Sankar thus argued that this is a case where this Court can intervene, particularly when it is impossible that a person like the petitioner, who had obtained 68 marks out of 75 in the Objective Assessment – which is the highest among all the candidates – could have been secured only 5 marks in the W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 6 : interview. He pleaded that, therefore, the principles of _res ipsa loquitor_ be adopted and Ext.P4 be set aside to the extent to which it had denied promotion to his client. 7. I have carefully gone through the materials on record and have analysed the afore submissions of the parties. 8. It is indubitable that the sole contention of the petitioner is that he has been granted 5 marks out of 25 in the interview in a malicious manner, so as to upset his chances of being promoted. Apart from such a statement, there is no substantiating material on record; though his learned counsel – Sri.P.K.Ravi Sankar tried to point out, as I have seen above, that every other candidate was awarded marks in interview, taking note of their Objective Assessment score, so as to ensure that his client is left out of the race. 9. I am afraid that such an allegation could have been impelled only if the petitioner is able to show why he was victimised; and this could have been possible only if the members of the Selection Committee had been arrayed and their actions impugned. 10. However, in the case at hand, it is evident that none of the members of the Selection Committee have been arrayed; W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 7 : and, in fact, pertinently, not even a whispering allegation has been made against them, or against their expertise. The petitioner has not explained why he was victimised and why he should have been denied promotion in the year 2022; though he maintains that he should have been awarded much higher marks in the interview. However, this Court has not been offered any material to assess the same or to take a decision thereon. 11. As matters now stand, it is admitted that the petitioner obtained only 5 marks in the interview; and that, when it is added to his Objective Assessment score, the total is 73, which is lower than that obtained by the 8[th] respondent, who received 74. The principles of _res ipsa loquitur_ certainly cannot apply to this case because, in **Deepthy Vijayakumar (supra),** the learned Division Bench noticed a different set of facts, namely that, with relation to the appointment in the services of a Cooperative Society, an enquiry had been done by the competent Statutory Authority, which found the selection process to be vitiated or suspicious. 12. As far as this case is concerned, as I have already said above, the petitioner does not even have an allegation _sotto voce_ that the members of the Selection Committee had acted W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 8 : _mala fidely_ against him, or that they had any reason to deny him the promotion. His assertion that, therefore, he should have been awarded much better marks in the interview, can only seen to be a self-serving one without any corroborating or substantiating force available. 13. In the afore circumstances, this Court is afraid that it cannot find in favour of the petitioner; and that, therefore, this writ petition is deserving of only being dismissed. It is so ordered. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** anm W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 9 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13035/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER| ||NO.A.23021/01/2021-EA DATED 26/11/2021| ||ISSUED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR)| ||OF 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT| ||PORTION OF THE SENIORITY LIST.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER| ||NO.A.60011/22/2020/HRPC/240 DATED| ||10/8/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT| ||AND THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE HR| ||HANDBOOK.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER| ||NO.A.32013/131/2022/DPC DATED 15/3/2022| ||ISSUED BY JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (HR) OF| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER| ||NO.A.32013/131/2022-DPC DATED 30/3/2022| ||ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE CORPORATE PERSONNEL| ||CIRCULAR NO.13-2010 BEARING NO.MPP/1126/| ||2010-VOL.I DATED 20/4/2010 ISSUED BY THE| ||MEMBER (P&A) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER A.32013/131/2022-| ||DPC DATED 15/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE AGM| ||(HR) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||31/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 4/4/2022| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED| ||31/10/2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DGCA-| ||15021/1/2022-DAS DATED 7-4-2022 ISSUED BY| ||JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE| ||GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION, NEW DELHI.| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A.| ||32013/131/2-2023-DPC DATED 10-1-2023| ||ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) OF THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT| |RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R1(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE| ||REGULATION 21(II) OF AIRPORTS AUTHORITY| ||OF INDIA RECRUITMENT PROMOTION| ||REGULATIONS, 2020| ## W.P.(C).No. 13035 of 2022 : 10 : |Exhibit R1(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT MARKSHEET| |---|---| |Exhibit R1(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE MARKSHEET FOR SPECIAL| ||ATTRIBUTES AND EXPERIENCE| |Exhibit R1(d)|TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 29-04-2022| ||ISSUED BY THE MANAGER (HR), REGIONAL HEAD| ||QUARTERS, SOUTHEN REGION| |Exhibit R1(e)|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-M- 2022| ||ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR)| |Exhibit R1(f)|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-05-2022| ||ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR)| |Exhibit R1(g)|THE MARKS AWARDED TO THE SELECTED| ||CANDIDATE AND TO THE PETITIONER IS| ||EXTRACTED|