Kerala High Court
Airport Authority Of India vs Sham Krishna B on 19 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 336
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 30TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1581 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 35998/2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, 'B' BLOCK,
RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW
DELHI - 110003.
2 CHAIRPERSON
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, 'B' BLOCK, RAJIV
GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI -
110003.
3 REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL HEAD
QUARTERS, SOUTHERN REGION, CHENNAI - 600027.
4 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HR
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL HEAD
QUARTERS, SOUTHERN REGION, CHENNAI - 600027.
BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SHAM KRISHNA B
S/O. SRI. S. BALACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT KADAYIL
VEEDU,CHENNANPARA, VITHURA
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 551.
W.A No.1581 of 2018
2
2 UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY,'B' BLOCK, RAJIV GANDHI
BHAVAN,SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT,NEW DELHI - 110 003.
3 ANAS M.
JUNIOR ASSISTANT (FIRE SERVICE),INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, CHENNAI - 600 027.
4 ABHILASH J.
JUNIOR ASSISTANT (FIRE SERVICE),INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, CHENNAI - 600 027.
5 KRISHNA CHANDRAN
S/O.S.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, HARIKRISHNA,
PATTUVILAKOM,
KATTAYIKONAM,
TRIVANDRUM-695584.
(IMPLEADED AS ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE
ORDER DATED 28/01/2020 IN IA NO.2/2019 IN WA
1581/2018)
6 SUDEV.P NARAYANAN
S/O.P.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING
AT PERUNTHANATHU HOUSE, RIVER VIEW ROAD,
THODUPUZHA.P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.
(IMPLEADED AS ADDL.6TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE
ORDER DATED 28.01.2020 IN IA 3/2019 IN WA
1581/2018)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN KOLLAM
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
R5 BY ADV. C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
R6 BY ADV. M.R.HARIRAJ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2020, THE COURT ON 19.02.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A No.1581 of 2018
3
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2020 Vinod Chandran, J.
The appeal is filed by the Airport Authority of India [AAI] against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, where the 1 st respondent was the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, an applicant to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Services) was aggrieved with denial of appointment. There were a total of 245 posts notified of which 122 were Un-Reserved (UR), 78 reserved for Other Backward Castes (OBC), 22 for Scheduled Castes (SC) and 22 + 1 for Scheduled Tribes (ST); +1 being a carried forward vacancy. A selection, comprising of written test, driving test, physical endurance test and interview, was conducted. We need not look at the essential qualifications for the post since there is no W.A No.1581 of 2018 4 dispute on that and the writ petitioner too is qualified for the post.
2. The petitioner obtained 56.92% marks and had a rank of 165 which however, was only later revealed to the applicant on a query made under the Right to Information Act (RTI). We notice this specifically since there is a ground of delay raised by the AAI, which we will have to address first. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the application of reservation by the AAI was flawed, and not as per roster mandated by the Central Government, which was accepted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to prepare and publish a rank list in accordance with the recruitment rules, Ext.P15, from amongst five times the number of posts notified. If the number of applicants is lesser, from among all the applicants, re-arranging the candidates in accordance with the model roster W.A No.1581 of 2018 5 in the Appendix to Annexure II to Ext.P6; against the respective reserved/unreserved posts as indicated in Ext.P14 and thereafter to make appointments against the remaining notified posts.
3. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the AAI, Sri. V. Santharam and Sri. M.R.Hariraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the additional respondent who is impleaded in this appeal, who also has the very same contention as the applicant.
4. Sri. Santharam relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995 (2) SCC 745 [R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab] and 2007(8) SCC 785[Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission to sustain the action of the AAI, in having applied reservation without compromising merit, first adjusting the reserved candidates in accordance with their merit and then filling up the reserved candidates in the slots available to them. W.A No.1581 of 2018 6 It is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that merit ought not to be overlooked insofar as the reserved candidates. A person entitled to be considered on merit should not be relegated to the reservation vacancy. It is in accordance with that the appointments were made and there is also a list drawn up in accordance with Ext.P6, which also would not enable the petitioner to be appointed.
5. It is strenuously contended that the writ petition itself was delayed and a selection which was carried out in February 2015 was challenged only in November 2016. By the time the writ petition was filed, the persons selected were send for training as is evident from Ext.R3(a)dated 13.02.2015 and there could be no further appointments made. The directions of the learned Single Judge would result in upsetting settled appointments and seniority. There being no other W.A No.1581 of 2018 7 challenge to the roster drawn up by the AAI, the learned Single Judge erred in directing complete revision of the select list.
6. Sri. Hariraj, would contend that the decisions cited by the learned Standing Counsel, has to be applied in the case of reservation. But in the application of reservation as carried out by the AAI, there is a clear violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the alleged attempt to not compromise merit, it has been compromised, is the submission. Ext.P6 is also pointed out to contend that the application of reservation as per the roster has not been correctly done in the subject appointments.
7. We would first address the question of delay. The notification for selection was by Annexure A1 in the year 2013 and the last date of application was on 30.05.2013. The interview of the petitioner was held on 17.01.2015. There is said to W.A No.1581 of 2018 8 have been a rank list drawn up with 185 candidates in which the petitioner had rank at 165. However, the said rank list, admittedly, was not published. It is the specific contention of AAI that there was no practice of publishing the rank list. What is seen to have been published is Ext.R3(a)dated 13.02.2015 which is the select list of 158 candidates who were deputed for training as per the selection.
8. The petitioner has specifically alleged in the writ petition that there was no publication of any list and the first information he received was based on Ext.P4 dated 22.06.2016 which is a query made under the RTI Act. This was responded to by Ext.P5 dated 18.07.2016 and entire details having not been furnished, a further application was made as per Ext.P7 dated 23.07.2016, which was responded to by Ext.P8. Counter affidavit of AAI in the writ petition, specifically indicates that W.A No.1581 of 2018 9 Ext.R3(a) was published in the website of the AAI. There is no denial on the part of the writ petitioner. It is the submission of the applicant that after the interview he was waiting for the rank list and that only on no appointment order being issued, even after passage of considerable time, he applied under the RTI Act and O.P was filed based on the information furnished under that Act.
9. The learned Single Judge has specifically found that since the AAI had admitted that there was no publication made of the rank list there could be no delay alleged against the appellant. We also find that even if Ext.R3(a) was published in the website it does not show the respective rank or marks obtained by the selected candidates. Only as per the responses to the queries made under the RTI Act, the petitioner was apprised of the manner in which the selections were W.A No.1581 of 2018 10 carried out and the roster of reservation applied. The queries under RTI Act were answered by Ext.P5 & P8 respectively dated 22.06.2016 and 23.07.2016. Within four to five months, the petitioner had approached this Court with a writ petition dated 09.11.2016. We do not think by reason only of the delay the petitioner can be non suited and the writ petition rejected.
10. Coming to the selection itself, as we noticed, there were vacancies set apart for the UR, OBC, SC and ST. The percentage of reservation as applicable to the AAI, is 22.5% for OBC, 12.83% for SC and 10.17% for the ST; which is stated to be on the basis of the regional proportion. The admitted case of the AAI is that for the purpose of ensuring that meritorious reserved candidates are conceded the merit vacancies, at first vacancies were filled by the first 122 candidates in the rank list without applying any roster. Reservation W.A No.1581 of 2018 11 was applied later, ensuring that reserved candidates lower down in the rank list were picked up for appointment to the reserved vacancies. It was also ensured that only candidates who found a place in the select list, by way of a relaxation to their reserved community was adjusted in the reserved vacancies. We immediately find that this compromises the merit insofar as the general candidates; which we would illustrate a little later.
11. When this writ petition was filed, a list was prepared by the AAI, making appropriate adjustments purportedly in compliance of Ext. P6. In doing so, it was ensured that the reserved vacancies were filled up only from candidates who were entitled to the exemption for OBC, the other OBC candidates with higher ranks, but not claiming any relaxation, adjusted against the merit vacancies itself. Originally 122 UR vacancies were W.A No.1581 of 2018 12 filled up in full by the rank holders first appearing in the rank list and then the reservation vacancies from the remaining candidates claiming reservation. In that process only 12 vacancies out of 78 reserved for OBC could be filled. Likewise out of 22 + 1 vacancies, reserved for ST, only 4 candidates could be selected. The vacancies for SC candidates were filled up in full. Backlog vacancies would be filled up from the subsequent selection, is the argument. It is also contented that even if the roster is to be applied, the petitioner would not be entitled, which is evident from the plotting of vacancies in accordance with the roster at Ext. P6, as plotted by the AAI and produced herein.
12. In this context, we have to look at the rival contentions raised, based on Annexure A3- rank list of candidates, Annexure A18-comparative plotting of roster by the AAI and prepared by the W.A No.1581 of 2018 13 applicant on the basis of Ext.P6. Before going to that, we have to peruse Ext.P6, the subject of which is 'Reservation roster-post based Implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of R.K Sabharwal V. State of Punjab'. The AAI necessarily has to follow Ext. P6, when applying the roster for reservation. The learned Single Judge had directed Appendix to Annexure II, to be looked at for the purpose of fixing the roster. We notice that Appendix to Annexure II, is the model roster for cadre strength of 13 posts. Here the cadre strength is far higher than that. Hence what would be applicable is Annexure II itself which is the model roster of reservation with reference to the posts for direct recruitment on All India basis, by open competition. However, therein the percentage of reservation is different from that followed by AAI, which we earlier noticed is based on local conditions. We find that while the share W.A No.1581 of 2018 14 of entitlement of SC, ST and OBC is 15%, 7.5% and 27% respectively as per Ext. P6, as far as AAI is concerned the ratio is asserted to be 22.5%, 12.83% and 10.17%. This is the ratio adopted by the AAI, in plotting the appointments to the open competition vacancies and the reserved vacancies. We would, for this case accept the said proportion of reservation quota, especially since the question is only of the claim of one candidate, the 1st respondent, for appointment.
13. We also have to notice that the cadre strength is not clear and hence it is impossible as of now to apply the roster to the cadre, which is the normal rule even according to Ext.P6. Definitely the AAI would have been obliged to apply the roster to the cadre itself, but, the strength in the cadre having not been disclosed we go by the application of roster as produced at Annexure A18.
14. As is seen from paragraph 6 of W.A No.1581 of 2018 15 Annexure-I (Ext.P6), the method for making a roster is to multiply [the serial number of]each post by the prescribed percentage of reservation for a reserved category and identify the roster point where, the community obtains a complete number or oversteps a complete number. Care should be taken that the different reserved communities are evenly spaced; ie: if two communities simultaneously get a roster point that community which got the earlier roster point should be scaled down to the next point [sequential serial number of posts]. Both the AAI and the petitioner have plotted the reservation roster points in accordance with this but the application of reservation is different, which has to be examined by us. For better understanding the application of roster as done by each, we extract the first page of the rank list at Annexure A-3 and the comparative plotting of vacancies and appointments as available from W.A No.1581 of 2018 16 Annexure A-18.
(i) The first page of the rank list at Annexure A3 is extracted here under:W.A No.1581 of 2018 17
(ii) The first page of Annexure-A18 is extracted herein below:W.A No.1581 of 2018 18
15. The plotting of AAI to satisfy Ext. P6, is after selecting the candidates for UR vacancies, from the first 122 in the rank list. Only those rank holders from the rank list, who had applied without any relaxation for reserved candidates were selected on merit, is the contention. Then the reserved categories, who availed of a relaxation from the remaining were fixed in the reservation slots. The contention of the AAI is that, to a reserved vacancy, only those persons who are eligible to be considered for appointment by way of a relaxation should be considered. Any person who competes without such relaxation should be taken in accordance with his merit itself; hence the first 122 unreserved/open competition candidates were selected enbloc first and then the reserved categories, who applied with relaxation were taken to the reserved categories.
16. We agree with the submission that the W.A No.1581 of 2018 19 candidates who applied under the reserved category availing of any benefit of relaxation of standards or even age, available to their community, can be appointed only to the reserved vacancies, as held in Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana Vs. Gujarat P.S.C (2019) 7 SCC 383. But there can be no rule that a meritorious reserved candidate who, on the basis of his merit is at the roster point reserved for his community should be passed over to accommodate another reserved candidate, lower down in the list who has availed of a relaxation. Then the principle of primacy to merit stands compromised.
17. We first notice the evident fallacy insofar as the plotting done by the AAI. We specifically notice the filling up of OBC reserved vacancies at roster point 5, 9, 14, 18 and 23, the first five roster points of OBC, as done by the AAI. From the rank-list, it is seen that the 5th rank holder Dileep A.B. is an OBC candidate and he W.A No.1581 of 2018 20 has been passed over to accommodate one Dileep Thekkayil Parambath, who is at the 8th rank. Dileep A.B., who stood at 5th rank, stands to loose insofar as he has been pushed down to the 6 th position while he was entitled to be retained in the reserved vacancy at the 5th place. Dileep Thekkayil Parambath will steal a march over the candidates at rank No.5, 6 and 7, all of whom are OBC. The logic seems to be that Dileep Thekkayil Parambath, is a candidate who availed relaxation on the basis of his community status and could only be fixed in the roster point for OBC. Dileep Thekkayil Parambath, by his merit, if coming at the roster point of an UR vacancy should be passed over to be accommodated in the next reserved vacancy. But he cannot be accommodated in a roster point higher to his merit, if there are OBC candidates above him in the merit list, by compromising their merit.
18. The 2 nd roster point available to OBC, W.A No.1581 of 2018 21 at the 9th post, is filled up with Afsal M.K who is the 131st rank holder. This compromises merit, not only of the reserved candidates including OBC but also the meritorious candidates from SC & ST. The 131st rank holder could have been given that roster point only if he is the next OBC candidate in the rank list. The next SC candidate was at rank number 38 and the ST at 126, with many others in the OBC category above the 131st rank, whose merit stands compromised. Afsal M.K, the 131st rank holder, if participated on the basis of relaxation available to OBC has to wait for an OBC roster point after all the OBC candidates above him are appointed either in UR or roster points of OBC. Likewise in the 3rd , 4th an 5th roster points Ashik Vahid, R.Arockia Raj and Muneer P.P who were at ranks 152, 153 and 155 were appointed, when there were very many OBC candidates above them. This compromises the merit of OBC candidates itself. W.A No.1581 of 2018 22 This also amounts to giving those who applied with a relaxation, an edge over their meritorious counterparts, thus creating a further reservation within the category of reserved candidates.
19. The first roster point reserved for OBC, being the 5th post should have gone to Dileep A.B who has the same position in the rank list. When the 8th post is conceded to the SC candidate (18th rank), in the 1st roster point for SC, Dileep Thekkayil Parambath, an OBC who had the 8 th rank would be adjusted in the 9th vacancy which is the 2nd roster point for OBC. The 10th post would go to the ST candidate(ST-1st roster point) having 73rd rank and the next three (11 to 13 posts) UR vacancies, to two UR and one OBC (on merit) having 9th to 11th rank. In the third roster point of OBC, (14th post) going by the rank list the OBC candidate Amal A., who had the 15th rank should have been appointed while he was pushed down to the 22nd W.A No.1581 of 2018 23 position, which is not permissible.
20. After Amal.A is placed in the 3rd OBC roster point, at the 14th post, the 15th goes to UR candidate having rank 12 and 16th in the 2nd SC roster point conceded to the 38th rank holder (SC). The 17th post then goes to rank 13 (UR) and the 18th post at the 4th roster point of OBC to Mahir V who is the 16th rank holder. The next UR vacancy (19th post) will go to the 14th rank holder, an UR candidate and the 20th post, is the 2nd roster point for ST where the 126th ST candidate is appointed. The 21st and 22nd post will go to ranks 13 and 14 (both UR) and the 5th roster point for OBC, to the OBC having 20th rank. If the vacancies are so filled up the writ petitioner will get 185 th post, which comes within the 122 vacancies for UR (103 rd UR vacancy) according to our plotting as distinct from the writ petitioners plotting at 184th post (102nd UR vacancy). This plotting would include the reserved W.A No.1581 of 2018 24 candidates also being appointed to UR vacancies in the order of rank and thus not compromising their merit.
21. Obviously, the filling up of roster points as arrived at by the AAI has been on a wrong interpretation of the norms as also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The reliance placed by the learned Standing Counsel is on paragraph 11 of Annexure 1 of Ext.P6 which is as below:
"11. While operating the roster, persons belonging to communities for whom reservation has been made, but who were appointed on merit and not owing to reservation, should not be shown against reserved points. They will occupy the unreserved points. (The same applies in the case of promotion also- See O.M. dated 11.07.2002-AUTHORS)"
Based on this, Sri. Santharam argues that persons belonging to communities entitled for reservation have to be appointed on merit and not on reservation and they should not be shown against reserved points at all. It is hence, before filling W.A No.1581 of 2018 25 up the roster points, 122 candidates have been selected first and then the roster points adjusted accordingly. There are also a number of OBC candidates appearing in the merit list, which led to there being no sufficient candidates to be filled up from OBC.
22. As we illustrated, this results in compromising the merit of not only the UR candidates but also other OBC candidates and the SC & ST candidates. What is intended by the extracted paragraph is that in 'operating the roster' the reserved candidates who come at the open competition vacancies shall not be passed over to be adjusted against reserved vacancies coming thereafter or their appointment reckoned for satisfying the percentage of reservation. In fact the extracted paragraph enables reserved candidates who come within their roster points to be adjusted there, since they cannot be stepped up on merit nor W.A No.1581 of 2018 26 passed over to accommodate another with lower merit. We reiterate; the extracted paragraph specifically speaks of 'operation of the roster' and appointment on merit of reserved candidates, which is to the UR vacancies and also to roster points of reservation, if they figure there.
23. Reservation, as is trite gives an edge to the categories who have been denied equal opportunities for long in this country. But in doing so, it has to be ensured that merit does not take an absolute back seat, thus perpetuating the evil of exclusion on grounds of caste and community. It is hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that in any selection carried out, unless other than for filling up the passed over reservation posts, there shall be no reservation, exceeding 50% of the vacancies. This is the purpose of providing roster points of reservation with reference to the percentage applicable to each W.A No.1581 of 2018 27 community, which enables the merit in the UR vacancies to be preserved. A reserved candidate at the 1st rank cannot be relegated to the 1st roster point for that community but has to be conceded the UR vacancy itself. A reserved candidate who appears on merit against a UR vacancy cannot be adjusted in a reservation vacancy; unless the roster point is above that of his rank. Likewise a reserved candidate in the rank position equivalent to the roster point of reservation has to be given that position satisfying the reservation turn. If he is passed over to take another candidate of the same community, who is further down in rank, it compromises the merit not only of UR candidates, but also of other reserved categories.
24. More clarity is available from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the AAI itself. R.K.Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 745] declared that W.A No.1581 of 2018 28 "When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation." (sic-para 4) The mandate is only to permit the reserved categories to compete for the non-reserved UR vacancies and not to count such reserved candidates appointed to open competition (UR) vacancies for satisfying the quota provided to that community.
25. This is the general purport of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 785] as is revealed from the following extract from Paragraph 9: W.A No.1581 of 2018 29
"9... Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non- reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney(1992 Supp.(3)SCC 217), R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995 (2) SCC
745), Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan(1995(6) SCC 684) and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul(1996(3) SCC 253).) ..."
26. The roster itself indicates the reserved points and non-reserved points. While the reserved category can compete for non-reserved posts, none from the general category can be appointed to the reserved posts. It has also been W.A No.1581 of 2018 30 made very clear that when any reserved category candidate gets selected to an UR (open competition or general category) vacancy it cannot be reckoned for the purpose of satisfying the quota for reserved category. We have to understand this specifically noticing the roster which has reserved points and the unreserved points which is as per the percentage available to each reserved category.
27. The OBC has 22.5 percentage posts reserved for them and has the 5 th, 9th, 14th, 18th and 23rd roster points (limited to 23 posts for convenience). Likewise, the Scheduled Caste has the 8th and 16th roster points, while the ST has the 10th and 20th roster points. The other vacancies, termed UR which are not conceded to reserved categories, are open competition vacancies which can be filled up either by general category candidates or reserved candidates, in accordance with merit. The correct method of filling up the W.A No.1581 of 2018 31 roster points has been illustrated by us herein above.
28. As per the accepted filling up of roster points as seen from Ext.P6, we find that the 1st respondent has to be conceded the 102nd unreserved vacancy. We do not propose to meddle with the entire selection carried out. It has to be noticed that, though the roster points as plotted out by the AAI is faulty, none of the appointees have challenged the same. As of now, considerable time has elapsed from the date of their appointments also. In such circumstances, we direct that the first respondent be appointed to the one vacancy which has been kept vacant as per the orders of the learned Single Judge.
29. We modify the judgment to the above extent and also direct the AAI to hereafter publish the rank list immediately after selection and also ensure that the roster points are filled up in W.A No.1581 of 2018 32 accordance with the directions in Ext.P6, as delineated upon by us. In such filling up of roster points in the subsequent selections we also direct the AAI to consider the cadre strength and have a comprehensive roster point in accordance with Ext.P6 produced herein.
30. We make it clear that the person who impleaded as additional respondents in the writ appeal, having not challenged the selection or the denial of their appointment at the appropriate time, are not entitled to any relief.
The writ appeal stands rejected but with the above modifications in the directions. No Costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.
Jma/ W.A No.1581 of 2018 33 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 A CLEAR COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO.01/SR/2013 DATED 30/05/2013.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JOB SPECIFICATION AND SELECTION PROCESS ISSUED UNDER COMMUNICATION DATED 14/07/2005 ALONG WITH 9 ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SELECTED AGAINST 122 UR POSTS.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SELECTED AGAINST OBC POSTS.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SELECTED AGAINST SC POSTS.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SELECTED AGAINST ST POSTS.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF 185 CANDIDATES.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF 185 CANDIDATES APPOINTED AS PER THE ROSTER.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPIES OF APPROVAL NO.A 12034/10/97-EW DATED 25/06/1999 AND ADVERTISEMENT.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPIES OF APPROVAL NO.A 12034/4/2002-EW DATED 24/10/2002 ALONG WITH ADVERTISEMENT.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A 12034/2/2004-EW DATED 17/05/2006 ALONG WITH ADVERTISEMENT AND THE DETAILS OF W.A No.1581 of 2018 34 THE RECRUITMENT MADE.
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPIES OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DATED 26/02/2010, 20/05/2010 AND 25/06/2010.
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENDED RESERVATION ROSTER.
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.36012/17/2002- ESTT(RES) DATED 06/11/2013.
ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.36033/1/2008- ESTT(RES) DATED 15/07/2008.
ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE ON RESERVATION CHAPTER 1 TO 10 (PAGES 3 TO
82).
ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF RESERVATION ROSTER PREPARED BY THE APPELLANTS ADHERING TO THE SCHEME OF ROSTER POINTS PROVIDED UNDER ANNEXURE-II OF EXHIBIT-P6 OM. ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE ROASTER OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBIT P6.
ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT CIRCULAR NO.36012/2/96-ESTT.(RES) DATED 02.07.1997.
ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT CIRCULAR NO.36011/1/98-ESTT.(RES) DATED 01.07.1998.
ANNEXURE 21 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT CIRCULAR NO.43011/4/2018-ESTT(RES) DATED 04.04.2018.
ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT CIRCULAR NO.DPE-
GM-0101/2014-GM-FTS-2280 DATED 02.05.2018.
W.A No.1581 of 201835 ANNEXURE R1(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE ROSTER PREPARED BY THIS APPELLANT.
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ON 31/07/2006.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.36033/1/2008- ESTT (RES) ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE RESERVATION ROSTERS FROM 1997 TO 2016.