Delhi High Court - Orders
Anand Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 2025
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~76
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13208/2025
ANAND KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Yogesh
Mahur and Mr. Harkesh Parasher,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Dubey, SPC with Mr.
Rishav Kashyap, G.P., Mr. Aman
Sinha and Mr. Amitabh Pandey,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Digvijay Rai, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Archit Mishra,
Advocate and Mr. Yoginder
Choudhary, Law Officer, AAI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 01.09.2025
1. The petition has been listed today, at my instance, pursuant to an order dated 29.08.2025, which is reproduced below:
"1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned Standing Counsel for Airports Authority of India ["AAI"], relied upon a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ankita Meena vs. Airport Authority of India and Anr. [2024 SCC OnLine Del 587], which concerned an identical question with regard to the very same post in AAI.
2. I had therefore dictated an order in Court, dismissing the writ petition
3. Before signing the order, however, my attention has been drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA W.P.(C) 13208/2025 Page 1 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 22:06:26 175/2024, against the aforesaid judgment, which was also carried to the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 15518/2024. These decisions prima facie appear to have a material bearing in the facts of this case, but were not brought to my attention during the course of the hearing.
4. In order to enable learned counsel to address on these decisions, the Registry is directed to list the petition on 01.09.2025, in the category of "For Directions" matters. The Court Master is directed to inform learned counsel for the parties."
2. The writ petition concerns the petitioner's application for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) in the respondent - Airports Authority of India ["AAI"], pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.02.2025. The advertisement provides for eligibility in the following terms:
"Diploma in Electronics/Telecommunications/Radio Engineering. Experience: Two years (2) relevant experience in the concerned discipline."
3. The petitioner holds a B.Tech degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh, and has been excluded from consideration.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 29.08.2025, Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel for AAI, relied upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench in Ankita Meena vs. Airport Authority of India and Anr. [2024 SCC OnLine Del 587] [hereinafter, "Ankita Meena"], in which it was inter alia held as follows:
"23. At the outset, this Court has observed that the online application form which has been filled by the petitioner appears to be an apparent misrepresentation inasmuch as the essential qualification sought as per the advertisement was 'Diploma in Electronics' which undisputedly the petitioner filled, whereas the petitioner was actually holding a degree in B.Tech.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
25. The submission regarding the petitioner having a higher qualification and as such being entitled to be considered for the said post is concerned, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of Punjab National Bank W.P.(C) 13208/2025 Page 2 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 22:06:26 (Supra) by a learned three judges' bench decision has noted in para 19 as under:-
"19. An employee is expected to give a correct information as to his qualification. The original writ petitioner failed to do so. He was in fact overqualified and therefore ineligible to apply for the job. In fact, by such conduct on the part of the respondent-original writ petitioner, one another righteous candidate has suffered for his mischievous act. As held by this Court in Ram Ratan Yadav [Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 306 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 306], suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee in relation to his continuance in service. A candidate having suppressed the material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continuance in service. Thus, on the ground of suppression of material information and the facts and as the respondent-original writ petitioner even otherwise was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement which was as per Circular Letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 6-11-2008, the Bank rightly cancelled his candidature and rightly did not permit him to resume his duty."
26. It is clear from the aforesaid judgment that the wrong filling of the educational qualification has been taken to be a material suppression and in fact, in that case, the continuance of the employee in employment itself was cancelled.
27. In the present case too, there does not seem to be any much of a variation between the facts which arose in the Punjab National Bank's (supra) case and the present one. On that count, the contention of Ms. Dhar that there was no other option but to fill in 'Diploma in Electronics' does not appeal to this Court without her having challenged the original notification itself.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
29. This Court is of the considered opinion that in case there is any such infraction by the Airport Authority of India, the petitioner ought to have challenged it at the initial stage itself, rather than first participate, take a chance and subsequently after being unable to get through, challenge the advertisement, which itself smacks of malafide.
30. The petitioner having participated in the selection process cannot challenge the same after she has been declared unsuccessful. This ratio has been affirmed by various judgments of Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309, Vijendra W.P.(C) 13208/2025 Page 3 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 22:06:26 Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttrakhand & Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150, Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 and recently reiterated by learned Division Bench of this Court in Karan Singh Meena vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Anr. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3098"
[Emphasis supplied.]
5. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment of a coordinate Bench, which concerned the very same post and qualifications, I had dictated a judgment in open Court dismissing the writ petition.
6. It was not pointed out to me that the judgment in Ankita Meena had been challenged before the Division Bench in LPA 175/2022, and the Division Bench, by judgment dated 28.02.024, sustained the order on the basis of the petitioner's lack of required experience, rather than on the ground of misrepresentation or belated challenge to the advertisement. This is clear from the following extracts of the Division Bench judgment:
"16. In the light of the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge, we may now proceed to deal with the submissions of the appellant. As noted hereinabove, the first and foremost submission of Ms. Dhar is that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that there was misrepresentation on the part of appellant in filling the application form. In the light of the explanation given by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was default dropdown menu in the application form, we are inclined to agree with the appellant that there was no willful misrepresentation by her. The finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard is, accordingly, set aside.
17. Now coming to the appellant's plea that unlike other advertisements issued by the respondent, it was not specified in the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Senior Assistant that only the experience earned after acquiring the qualifying degree would be taken into account. Having perused the advertisement, even though we are inclined to agree with the appellant that the advertisement in question was silent as to whether only the experience earned after acquiring the degree would be counted, we are of the considered view that just because the advertisement was silent in this regard, it would not imply that the experience earned by a candidate even before acquiring a qualifying degree ought to have also been taken into W.P.(C) 13208/2025 Page 4 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 22:06:26 consideration. In our view, when the advertisement is silent, there is a presumption that only the experience earned after acquiring the degree would be counted.
18. We have also considered the decision in Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) relied upon by the appellant but find that as held by the learned Single Judge, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said decision, the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where a clarification has been sought by the UPSC making it clear that the entire service of the candidate including the service rendered before obtaining the degree was to taken into consideration. In the instant case, no such clarification was ever issued by the respondent that the experience earned before obtaining the degree would be counted. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concurring with the learned Single Judge that the appellant did not have the requisite experience of two years.
19. In the light of our aforesaid conclusion that the appellant was not holding the requisite experience of two years in the field of Electronics after having obtained the said degree, we do not deem it necessary to delve into other two grounds urged by the appellant. We are, therefore, refraining from examining as to whether the appellant who holds a degree in Electronics could, in the facts of the present case, said to be holding the requisite qualification of diploma in Electronics as prescribed under the advertisement. For the same reasons, we are also not examining the issue as to whether the appellant was entitled to challenge the advertisement and the reservation of one post provided for ST candidates after she had, without raising any objection, participated in the same."
[Emphasis supplied.]
7. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition [SLP (C) No. 15518/2024], which was dismissed by order dated 22.07.2024.
8. In the present case, the petitioner's candidature has not been rejected on the ground of lack of experience, but ineligibility in terms of the educational qualification. As evident from the above extracts of the Division Bench judgment, the findings of the learned Single Judge with regard to misrepresentation have been set aside by the Division Bench. The question as to whether a degree in Electronics would suffice against W.P.(C) 13208/2025 Page 5 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 22:06:26 the eligibility criteria of diploma has been left open, as also the question of the petitioner's belated approach to the Court. The Division Bench judgment thus effects the very substratum of AAI's reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Ankita Meena for the purposes of this case.
9. It is a matter of grave concern that the Division Bench judgment was not cited, and the Court was shown only the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which had partially been set aside. Significantly, the very same respondent was party to the Division Bench judgment, and was represented before the Division Bench by the same counsel.
10. Mr. Rai submits that this situation has arisen due to inadvertence. Even if it is so, it displays a reckless disregard for duty to the Court. In any situation, the Court would expect to be informed if a judgment cited has been overruled or reversed. In the present case, the judgment cited concerns the same employer, which was represented by the same counsel, both before the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The Court is unable to appreciate any explanation for citation of the learned Single Judge's judgment without any reference to the Division Bench judgment. This, in fact, led to an order being dictated dismissing the petition in limine. Whatever the ultimate result of the case, this conduct, by itself, makes it necessary to impose an order of costs on AAI. AAI is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 30,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Library Fund [A/c No. 15530100046108, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch: Delhi High Court, IFSC - UCBA0001553] within one week from today. Affidavit of compliance to be filed within one week thereafter.
11. Turning to the merits of the matter, the Division Bench has clearly W.P.(C) 13208/2025 Page 6 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 22:06:26 left open the question of whether a B.Tech Degree would qualify the petitioner to be considered for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics), which requires a Diploma in Electronics. This matter will therefore require further consideration.
12. Issue Notice. Mr. Neeraj Dubey, learned Panel Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1-Union of India. Mr. Rai, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of AAI.
13. At this stage, Mr. Chhibber seeks interim relief, as it is undisputed that the petitioner, in fact, qualified in the Computer Based Test, and was thereafter called for document verification. It is, therefore, the petitioner's case that his application was only rejected on the ground of having a higher qualification than prescribed. Mr. Chhibber submits that such an exclusion of persons holding B.Tech degrees in the very same discipline, is arbitrary and unreasonable.
14. Mr. Chhibber relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma v. H.P. SEB [(2021) 16 SCC 340] [hereinafter, "Puneet Sharma"], which held, after analysis of the applicable Recruitment Rules, that degree holders were eligible to compete for Junior Engineer posts, for which also diploma was the prescribed eligibility qualification, as promotional avenues emanating from the said post required possession of a degree.
15. On the other hand, Mr. Rai relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pooja Devi [2023 SCC OnLine Del 6984], which considered Puneet Sharma, and held that possession of a higher qualification does not automatically imply possession of the prescribed lower qualification, unless the Recruitment W.P.(C) 13208/2025 Page 7 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 22:06:26 Rules or advertisement specifically provide so. Mr. Rai submitted that the said decision distinguished Puneet Sharma. The Division Bench judgment considered the qualification of post-graduate degree in Punjabi, as opposed to the eligibility qualification of studying Punjabi for at least two years as a subject in the course of BA/BA (Hons.) for the post of TGT Punjabi. It is evident that the question considered in the Division Bench judgment was, thus, quite different from the question with which we are faced here. The Division Bench distinguished Puneet Sharma on the ground that it turned on an interpretation of relevant rules, which intended to include degree holders in addition to diploma holders. That very question requires further examination in the present case also, which concerns the very same qualifications as were in issue in Puneet Sharma.
16. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, I am of the view that adjudication of the present petition warrants a detailed analysis of the Recruitment Rules, as well as the aforesaid cases. AAI is directed to place on record the Recruitment Rules for the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) and any promotional post therefrom.
17. As the recruitment process is stated to be ongoing, one post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) in the unreserved category in AAI will be kept vacant, to abide by the outcome of the present writ petition.
18. Counter affidavits be filed within two weeks. Rejoinders thereto, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
19. List on 12.11.2025, in the category of "For Admission" matters.
PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2025/'pv'/AD/ W.P.(C) 13208/2025 Page 8 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 22:06:26