Vidyanand M vs Union of India & Others; Arun.R.A vs Union of India & Others (WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 16186 OF 2019** **PETITIONER:** VIDYANAND M, AGED 41 YEARS S/O LATE MADHAVAN M, RESIDING AT MANIKKOTH HOUSE, P.O.ALAVIL, KANNUR-670 008 BY ADVS. ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3 THE CHAIRMAN, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4 THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SOUTHERN REGION, CHENNAI600 027 BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11348/2020, THE COURT ON 13/10/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11348 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 ARUN.R.A AGED 42 YEARS S/O.R.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 'ARUN BHAVAN', NEAR ALAN FELD MAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, KAZHAKUTTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582 MOB 7907293157 2 BENNY VARGHESE, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.LATE Y.PODIYAN, RESIDING AT BENNY BHAVAN, THAZHAM WARD, EAST KALLADA.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT691502, MOB 8547910011 3 SREERAJ.S.R. AGED 39 YEARS S/O.A.P.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MAVUVILAVEEDU, ARAYIL, PAKALKURY.P.O, PALLICKAL, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, KERALA-695604 MOB 8281867121 4 KALADHARAN.A, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.LATE GANGADHARAN NIAR, RESIDING AT PONNARAMBATH HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM POST, BALUSSERY VILLAGE, BALUSSERY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673612 MOB 9446973801 5 MANOJ.U.K AGED 38 YEARS S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR K, RESIDING AT SREEBHAVAN, CHOOZHATTUKOTTA, MALAYAM.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695571 MOB 9475422734 BY ADVS. ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH **RESPONDENTS:** 3 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 2 THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001 3 THE CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF IDNIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001 4 THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SOUTHERN REGION, CHENNAI-600027 BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI.V.SANTHARAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).16186/2019, THE COURT ON 13/10/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 4 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** ## **[WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** Five Ex servicemen have preferred W.P.(C) No.11348/2020. W.P.(C) No.16186/2019 is preferred by a single Ex serviceman. Since common facts arise and all the petitioners challenge the selection process pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, both the writ petitions were heard together and is considered by a common judgment. The exhibits are hereinafter referred to as they are referred in W.P.(C)No.16186/2019. 2. The Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as “AAI” in short) which is one of the respondent herein, issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications to fill up 147 posts of junior assistant(Fire Service) and 39 posts of senior assistant (Electronics), in the southern region of the Airports Authority of India. One of the condition prescribed therein is that, the candidate should be domiciled in South India. It is also provided in Ext.P1 that reservation will be extended to eligible candidates. The writ petitioners applied to the post of junior assistant (Fire service). According to the writ petitioners, Airport Authority of India had framed Ext.P2 Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 42 of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. The said Regulations is known as Airport Authority of India (Recruitment & Promotion) Regulations 2005. By Ext.P2, the post of junior assistant and equivalents are group C posts. Regulation 12 affirmed that, the directives 5 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** of the Government concerning reservations of vacancies and concessions to different categories of entitled groups belonging to SC/ST/other backward classes and physically challenged candidates as notified by the Government from time to time will strictly be followed by the notified appointing authorities. Rule 12 of Ext.P2 includes Ex servicemen also. Evidently, Ext.P2 affirms that the principles of reservation will be followed in filling of vacancies by the Airports Authority of India. The claim set up by the writ petitioners is that they are entitled to claim eligibility in the category of Ex servicemen as defined under the Ex servicemen(Reemployment in Central Civil Services and Post) Rules 1979. 3. Ext.P3 is the compendium issued by the Central Government on reservations, concessions and relaxations to ex-servicemen in central civil service. It applies to all Groups C & D posts of Central Civil Services. The percentage of reservation set apart for the ex servicemen for Group C post is 10% of the vacancies. It is further provided in Ext.P3 that no vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen is to be filled, otherwise than on the results of an open competitive examination. The writ petitioners being eligible to apply, applied to the post of junior assistant(Fire Service). All the petitioners passed both the stages of the examination. The grievance of the petitioners is that, however, the final merit list is not published. Hence, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16186/2019 applied for the final merit list with names of each party under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P8 (Annexure B,) reply was given, in which it is informed that seven 6 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** ex servicemen including writ petitioners have cleared both the papers. Claiming that the writ petitioners are hence entitled to be appointed to the posts by applying the principle of reservation meant for the category of Ex servicemen, the writ petition was filed. Ext.P19 is the list of persons who have been advised to undergo training. Names of the writ petitioners are not seen in the above list. Alleging that the selection is without following the reservation policy for ex servicemen and thereby it is illegal, arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory and thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioners have approached this court. Ext.P11 representation dated 7/5/2019 was submitted by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16186/2019, before the public grievances officer. It is also not favourably responded, it is stated. 4. In the writ petitions, the reliefs sought are to quash Ext.P1 notification for not providing for reservation and to declare that the appointment to the posts of junior assistant(fire service) are without following the reservation policy for the category of ex servicemen and also to declare that the petitioners are entitled to be selected. 5. W.P.(C) No.11348/2020 was amended pending the proceedings and a prayer to restrain respondents 2 to 4 from filling up seven posts was added. By an interim order dated 14/6/2019 in W.P.No.16186/2019, it was directed that the appointments made to the above posts would be provisional and subject to the result of the writ petition. There was a further direction not to fill up two posts of junior assistants. 7 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** 6. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit in both the writ petitions. They have also filed an additional counter affidavit in the amended writ petition. Reply affidavits have also been filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Airports Authority of India. Examined the records. 8. The main issue that arises is whether the respondents are bound to follow the reservation for the category of Ex servicemen, in Ext.P1 vacancies and whether in so far as Ext.P1 provided for selection of candidates other than belonging to ex servicemen, is legally sustainable. 9. Evidently, Ext.P1, though refers to reservation to various categories, there is absolutely no reference to reservation for the category of ex servicemen. However, it provided for age extension by three years for ex servicemen. Ext.P2 is the Regulation. Regulation 12 of Ext.P2 specifically provides for reservations and concessions to SC/ST, other backward classes & physically handicapped persons and ex servicemen. Regulation 12 affirms that the above reservations as notified by the Government from time to time will be strictly followed by the notified appointing authorities. Ext.P3 is the compendium which relates to the Government order reserving 10% vacancies for Ex servicemen in Group C posts. There is no dispute that Ext.P1 notification is silent about the reservation for Ex servicemen. 10. The respondents in their counter affidavits referred to Ext.P3 8 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, based on ex servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules 1979, issued in exercise of power conferred on the basis of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and claimed that the said Rules is applicable only relation to appointment in the Central Government, relating to reservations and concessions given to ex servicemen. It is further affirmed that the Rules 1979 is not made applicable to AAI by Central Government, till the date of notification. Hence, it is claimed that the reservation of 10%, specified under Ext.P3 is applicable only in the Central Government employment and not in AAI. The AAI is claimed to be public sector undertaking (PSU), bound by the mandates of Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. It is contended that as long as the Rules 1979, are not made applicable to the AAI, the petitioner cannot seek any reservation for ex servicemen on the basis of the Rules 1979 in AAI. Having taken such a stand in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.16186/2019, towards the end of the paragraph the respondents affirmed that the clauses 2 and 5 in Ext.P1 were incorporated as per the directives issued by the first respondent by office memorandum No.36034/3/2013- Estt (Res) dated 25/2/2014. The above OM was produced as Ext.R4(e). Strangely, Ext.R4(e) corresponds to Ext.P3. Evidently, though in many words it is stated in first part of para 5 that Ext.P3 is not applicable, towards the end of the same paragraph, virtually 9 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** the AAI accepted the position that clauses 2 and 5 of Ext.P1 were incorporated pursuant to Ext.P3. In the above circumstances, the AAI cannot be heard to contend that reservation of ex servicemen is not available to posts sought to be filled up by Ext.P1 proceeding. 11. The above contention of the respondent is not sustainable for another reason also. Ext.P13 is a communication dated 14/6/2018 issued by the Asst. General Manager ( HR) of AAI addressed to the Director, Directorate of Employment and Training of Union Territory of Lakshadweep, referring to Ext.P1 notification and requesting him to give maximum publicity to the above notification. In that, just below the name of the posts against the caption “note”, it is mentioned that “Reservation of Ex servicemen is applicable”. However, it is conspicuously absent in Ext.P1. Further, Ext.P14 circular, though subsequent to Ext.P1, provides that number of posts reserved for Ex servicemen shall be specifically indicated in the advertisement. 12. As evident from the entire records, Ext.P1 is silent about the reservation. The final merit list also did not indicate selection of any Ex servicemen under the category of Ex servicemen. Respondents have also no case that Ex-servicemen were selected to fill up posts reserved for them. Clearly, reservation policy was not followed in the case of appointments covered by Ext.P1. 13. Vehemently attacking the writ petitions, the learned counsel for the AAI contended that the writ petitioners are guilty of latches, delay and 10 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** attempting to upset the long drawn selection process, after participating in the entire process. It was vehemently contended by the respondent that the writ petitioners, after having participated in the selection process and after finding that they have not been selected, cannot turn round and challenge the selection proceedings. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions reported in _**Municipal**_ _**Corporation of Delhi v. Surender Singh and Others (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67)**_ as well as the decision reported in _**Anupal Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 173)**_ . In Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), the Supreme Court held that, after having participated in the selection process, the participants cannot challenge it upon failure to get selected. He will not be permitted to approbate and reprobate, it was held. On an identical issue, in Anupal Singh's case(supra), Supreme Court held that, having participated in the interview, the respondents cannot challenge an office memorandum and the selection. The Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision reported in _**Madanlal v. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486)**_ . In that case, the apex court had held that if the candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi's case(supra), fully aware of a clause in the 11 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** notification fixing the minimum qualifying marks, the candidate participated and thereafter challenged the appointment, inter alia, on that ground. On the other hand, in Anupal Singh's case, after the notification, revised notification was issued, changing the number of seats in open category. Fully knowing well about the notification they participated and thereafter finding that they have not been selected the candidates challenged the selection process. It was in this context, the Supreme Court, in both the cases, held that the candidates are not entitled to approbate and reprobate. 14. It is pertinent to note that in the case at hand, the candidates are challenging the notification to the extent of not providing for specific reservation for Ex servicemen, which AAI was legally entitled to provide. Reservation policy being a statutory obligation ought to have been embedded in the notification. Participation in the selection process will not take away the right of the candidate to challenge the exclusion of reservation. In this case the refusal to extend the benefit of reservation was not known to the candidates till the list of candidates was published. Further, in the notification it was not specified whether reservation will be extended or not Hence, on facts, the case at hand stands on a different footing from the facts in Municipal Corporation of Delhi's case and Anupal Singh' case. 15. Drawing the attention to the significance of reservation of ex servicemen, learned counsel for the writ petitioners referred to the 12 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** decision in _**Duglus Charley v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (2019 (4) KLT 906)**_ wherein a learned Judge of this court had observed that, the reservation in the matter of re-employment of ex servicemen provided by the Government is to provide necessary facilities for the re-settlement of Ex servicemen, who have given the best part of their life for the safety and security of the nation. On noticing that almost all ex servicemen require help and assistance for re-settlement and that they require a second career as they are young and active and their responsibilities and obligations were at the peak, at the time when they retired from service at an early age, it was held that the benefits extended to the ex servicemen under the relevant provisions providing reservation in the matter of re-employment requires implementation in letter and spirit. 16. Assailing the writ petitions, learned counsel for the AAI vehemently contended that the writ petitioners have approached this court highly belatedly and are guilty of latches. It was submitted that, by virtue of Ext.P1 notification,applications were invited to fill up 147 posts of junior assistant(fire service) . The written examination was conducted on 20[th] October 2018. Total number of 10435 applications were received and 7465 appeared for computer based online test. Out of it, 3790 candidates were found eligible for physical endurance test. The selection of candidates was from the southern region which includes States of Tamilnadu, Andra Pradesh, Telengana, Karnataka, Kerala, Pondichery 13 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** and Lakshwadeep Island. Written examinations (stage 1) was conducted at various centers in South India. The second written examination was conducted on 20/10/2018. 3790 candidates were qualified for stage 2 selection process. As per the reservation requirement advertised, 146 candidates have been selected initially and 1122 candidates kept in the panel. AAI has a specific case that the writ petitioners secured lesser marks than the last among the 146 candidates selected and consequently, the writ petitioners are not eligible to be appointed. Relying on these factual materials, the learned counsel for the AAI highlighted the laborious selection process and how a last minute challenge would upset the selection process prejudicially affecting several candidates distributed through out the southern India. The publication of the result was on 12/3/2019 evidenced by Ext.R4(h). However, the writ petitioners approached this court only on 12/6/2019 by filing W.P.(C) No.16186/2019. It was contended that, in similar cases the Supreme Court has heavily come down on candidates who were guilty of latches and delay in challenging the selection process. Relief was liable to be rejected on that ground alone, it was argued. 17. To buttress the above contentions, the learned counsel for the AAI relied on the decisions reported in _**Vijay kumar Kaul & others v. Union of India and Others (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 610)**_ and _**U.P.Jal Nigam and Another v. Jaswant Singh And Another (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 464)**_ . In the former case, the Supreme Court held 14 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** that the appellants were selected in 1984 as LDCs, but were not issued appointment order on the ground that there was a ban on appointment. They challenged the seniority only much later. It was found that the appellants neither before the Tribunal, nor before the High court, claimed appointment with retrospective effect and conceded that on the grounds of parity they may be conferred seniority so that their promotions were not effected. It was held that the application was highly belated and such a claim cannot be accepted. In the case of U.P. Jal Nigam 's case(supra), it was held that the delay and latches was a ground to deny the relief to the petitioners. It was further held that when a person is not vigilant of his rights and acquieces with the situation and only when the acquiescence prejudices or there is no change of position on the part of the party allegedly violating his rights, such person's writ petition cannot be heard after the delay on the ground that the same relief should be granted as was granted to persons similarly situated. but who were vigilant of their rights. 18. Evidently, the writ petitioners approached this court only after the selection process was completed. The petitioners have disclosed in their applications that they were ex servicemen. It is seen that though Ext.R4(h) results were published, it did not disclose whether reservation was followed or not. Even in the select list, it was not disclosed whether the reservation was extended to ex servicemen. After having kept the petitioners in dark as to whether the benefit of reservation was extended 15 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** till the list was published, the respondent cannot now set up delay as a ground for opposing the writ petitions. According to the respondent, as seen from Ext.R4(i), the notification of final result was published on 9/4/2019. To a specific question asked under RTI Act, whether any Ex servicemen was selected, the roll numbers of seven persons who qualified in all stages of examination were published. Having considered these facts, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the AAI that the petitioners are guilty of latches and hence the relief should be declined to them. 19. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the AAI was that, even if the relief sought by the petitioners is granted, it is likely to affect at least few candidates and the seniority of few other candidates who are already selected. Hence, the petitioners ought to have impleaded the persons who are likely to be affected or at least some among them. To substantiate the above contention, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners relied on the decisions in **Ranjan Kumar And others v. State of Bihar And Others(2014) 16 Supreme Court Cases 187)** , _**Anupal Singh's case(supra) and**_ a single judge decision of this court in _**W.P.(C) No.7374/2019**_ which was affirmed in _**W.A.No.1521/2020**_ by the Division Bench. 20. In Ranjan Kumar's case, it was held that , to quash appointments sought in a petition, where appointees are not impleaded, no adverse order can be passed against the persons who were not made 16 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** parties to the litigation. Since the appointees were not impleaded, writ petition was defective and hence no relief could be granted to the writ petitioners. In Anupal Singh's case(supra) it was held that when the selection of successful candidates is challenged, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the successful candidates ought to be put on notice about the filing of the writ petition, by impleading them by issuance of notice. In W.P.(C) No.7374/2019 it was held that, petitioners cannot challenge the seniority list without impleading all the persons included in the seniority list, atleast who were stated to be petitioner's junior in the writ petitions. This judgment was affirmed in W.A.No.1521/2020. 21. It is true that the petitioners have not impleaded the selected persons or candidates who are likely to be affected , if an order is passed in favour of the petitioners. This was answered by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners contending that selection was extended to the entire South India region. The details of persons selected were not made available to them. The exact persons who are likely to be affected by an adverse order is also not known to the petitioners, since the placing of the writ petitioners at the appropriate slot is also not known to the petitioners. At no stage of selection process, the names of selected candidates were disclosed. Further, such a contention cannot be heard at the instance of the respondents who did not publish merit list as well as the rank list showing the names and addresses of the persons selected. 17 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** Even Ext.P10, which is the list of persons recruited to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire service) does not disclose the names of the persons recruited. After having denied the details of the candidates who were selected, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that writ petition is not maintainable, since those persons who are likely to be affected are not made a party. Further, by virtue of the interim order, two seats are kept vacant. This Court by Ext.P10 interim order had directed that appointments, if made, shall be provisional and subject to the result of the writ petition. Having considered these facts, I feel that the above contention is not legally sustainable in the facts of the case. 22. In the light of the above discussion, it is evident that the selection process, in so far as it violated the reservation policy in relation to re-employment of ex servicemen, is bad in law. To that extent it is liable to be interfered. I feel that without setting aside Ext.P1, there can be a direction to the AAI to accommodate eligible among the writ petitioners to the post of junior assistant(Fire service), in the category of ex servicemen. 23. Ext.P9 is the list of ex servicemen who qualified in the examination. It seems that, seven ex servicemen are qualified. Only six petitioners have approached this court. Among that, the second in the rank list with number 130500241 is the second petitioner in W.P.(C) No11348/2020, Sri.Benny Varghese. It was submitted that Benny got appointment in the general category. Hence, out of the six writ petitioners, 18 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** Benny need not be considered for reserved category. Hence, the remaining five writ petitioners are liable to be given appointments towards the category of ex servicemen in the order of their marks. Two seats have already been kept vacant by virtue of the interim order of this court. Hence, AAI shall identify three more vacancies and shall accommodate the petitioners. The rank list shall be revised accordingly and, the writ petitioners except the second petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11348/2020 shall be given appointment orders, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petitions are allowed to the above extent. Sd/- **SUNIL THOMAS Judge** dpk 19 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11348/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY| |---|---| ||THE 4TH RESPONDENT INVITING APPLICATION| ||INTER-ALIA FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST| ||OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT (FIRE SERVICE)| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE REGULATIONS FRAMED B| ||THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA| ||(RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION) REGULATIONS,| ||2005| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPENDIUM ISSUED BY| ||THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ON RESERVATION,| ||CONCESSIONS AND RELAXATIONS TO EX-| ||SERVICEMEN IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.| ||NO.20(10)/99DPE- GM-PART 2014-FTS-1517| ||DATED 25.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE| ||WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE| ||LIST PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY| ||DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE| ||MARKS OF THE CANDIDATES WHO PARTICIPATED| ||IN THE STATE 2N DO THE SELECTION PROCESS| ||DOWNLOAD FROM THE WEBSITE| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.05.2019| ||ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OT THE| ||PETITIONERS| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PROVISIONALLY| ||SELECTED CANDIDATES WHO HAVE BEEN| ||DEPUTED FOR TRAINING PUBLISHED BY THE| ||4TH RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2019| ||IN WP(C)NO.16186/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE| 20 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** COURT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF OM NO.36012/17/2002 – ESTT(RES) DATED 6/11/2003 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE OM NO.36033/1/2008 – ESTT.(RES) DATED 15/7/2008 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(C): COPY OF THE OM NO. A 36011/1/2011 – ESTT (RES) DATED 17/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(D): COPY OF THE OM NO. A 36011/12013 – ESTT(RES) DATED 23/1/2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(E): COPY OF THE OM NO. 36034/3/2013 – ESTT.(RES) DATED 25/2/2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(F): COPY OF THE LIST OF ALL THE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHICH ALSO CONTAIN THE MARKS OBTAINED BY EACH CANDIDATE IN BOTH FIRST AND SECOND STAGE OF SELECTION PROCESS EXT.R4(G): COPY OF TH SCREEN SHORT OF THE WEBSITE OF AAI, WHICH PROVES THE PUBLICATION OF THE RESULTS ON 12/12/2018 EXT.R4(H): COPY OF THE SCREEN SHORT OF THE WEBSITE OF AAI WHICH PROVES THE PUBLICATION OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WHO WERE SHORTLISTED. EXT.R4(I): COPY OF THE SCREEN SHORT OF THE WEBSITE OF AAI WHICH PROVES THE 21 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** PUBLICATION OF RESULTS OF COMPUTER BASED TEST. EXT.R4(J): COPY OF THE CHRM CIRCULAR NO.43/2019 DATED 29/7/2019 22 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16186/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO SR 1/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (RECRUITMENT & PROMOTION) REGULATIONS, 2005 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPENDIUM ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN RESERVATIONS, CONCESSIONS AND RELAXATIONS TO EXSERVICEMEN IN CENTRAL GOVT. SERVICE - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2015 ISSUE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT MEMO DATED 14.1.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LIST OF MARKS SCORED BY THE CANDIDATES IN THE COMPUTER BASED TEST. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LIST OF MARKS SCORED BY THE CANDIDATES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE STAGE 2 OF THE SELECTION PROCESS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PROVISIONALLY SELECTED CANDIDATES WHO HAVE BEEN DEPUTED FOR TRAINING EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.5.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC GRIEVANCE OFFICER IN 23 **WP(C) Nos.16186/2019, 11348/2020]** THE AUTHORITY EXT.P12: PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 25/2/2015. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE CHRM CIRICULAR NO.43/2019 DATED 29/7/2019 ISSUED BY AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE OM NO.36012/17/2002-ESTT(RES) DATED 6/11/2003 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OM NO.36033/1/2008-ESTT(RES) DATED 15/7/2008. EXT.R4(C): COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OM NO. A 36011/1/2011 – ESTT (RES) DATED 17/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(D): COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OM NO.A 36011/1/12013-ESTT(RES) DATED 23/1/2014. EXT.R4(E): COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OM NO. A36034/3/2013-ESTT.(RES) DATED 25/2/2014. EXT.R4(F): COPPY OF THE LIST OF ALL THE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES, WHICH ALSO CONTAIN THE MARKS OBTAINED BY EACH CANDIDATE IN BOTH FIRST AND SECOND STAGE OF SELECTION PROCESS. EXT.R4(G): COPY OF THE SCREEN SHORT OF THE WEBSITE OF AAI, WHICH PROVES THE PUBLICATION OF THE RESULTS ON 12/12/2018 EXT.R4(H): COPY OF THE SCREEN SHORT OF THE WEBSITE OF AAI WHICH PROVES THE PUBLICATION OF THE RESULTS ON 12/3/2019. EXT.R4(I) COPY OF THE SCREEN SHORT OF THE WEBSITE OF AAI WHICH PROVES THE PUBLICATION OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WHO WERE SHORTLISTED. EXT.R4(J): COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/05/2019 TO EXT.P11