Delhi High Court
Hawa Singh Khatri And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 29 August, 2007
Author: Rekha Sharma
Bench: Rekha Sharma
JUDGMENT Rekha Sharma, J.
1. Both the writ petitions are inter-linked and are based on common facts. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. It so happened that in the year 1994, ten petitioners led by Hawa Singh Khatri filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1305 of 1994 alleging that though they were selected for appointment to the posts of Fire Operators, they were not so appointed. Accordingly, they prayed for a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Fire Operators.
3. The facts on which they laid their claim were that they were sponsored through employment exchange for selection to the posts of Fire Operators and were asked to report to Personnel Department of Indira Gandhi International Airport on July 30, 1991 for physical standard verification, driving test, stamina test and interview. As directed, they took all the aforementioned tests. They were found fit but before their actual appointments as Fire Operators could take place, they were required to undergo basic training for Operators in IAAI. The letters to this effect were issued on November 22, 1991. One such letter addressed to Devender Kumar has been placed on record and it is not in dispute that similar letters were issued to other petitioners as well. Relevant part of said letter which has a bearing on the disposal of this writ petition reads as under:
You have been selected for basic course for Operator in IAAI before you are actually appointed as Fire Operator on the following terms and conditions:
a) that you are required to undergo basic course training in FTC conducted by IAAI Headquarters.
b) Your actual appointment will be subject to successful completion of the basic courses and passing out the prescribed examination from the FTC.
4. By another letter dated December 6, 1991, they were directed to report to the Fire Training Centre Hostel (Palam Airport) to undergo training. This letter contained the names of 29 trainees including the petitioners.
5. On the basis of the above averments, notice to show cause was issued to the respondents. Although the respondents entered appearance, no response to the show-cause was filed either at the show cause stage or after 'Rule' was issued on May 6,1994. In the meantime, one of the petitioners, namely, Hawa Singh Khatri filed an application stating that he wanted to pursue the matter with the department and accordingly prayed for deletion of his name from the array of the petitioners. His application was accepted and his name was deleted from the case.
6. In the year 1996, the same petitioners sans Hawa Singh Khatri and Ram Chander filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1398 of 1996 on the same set of facts as were set out in Writ Petition No. 1305 of 1994 and also on an additional ground alleging that though they were similarly placed as Hawa Singh Khatri and like him had successfully completed the training imparted for appointment to the posts of Fire Operators, a letter dated February 26, 1996 was issued by the Airport Authority of India to Hawa Singh Khatri permitting him to appear in the examination for undergoing test for basic course along with final examination of 31st batch Basic/Re-Orientation Course for Fire Operators while no such letter was issued to them. Therefore, they prayed that the respondents should be directed to issue similar letters to them as was issued to Hawa Singh Khatri.
7. On being issued notice in Writ Petition (C) No. 1398 of 1996, the respondents filed counter affidavit and therein took number of preliminary objections as to its maintainability. However, the main objection taken was with regard to the suppression of material facts by the petitioners. It was stated that in terms of letter dated November 21, 1991 (the relevant extract of which has already been quoted hereinabove), the actual appointment of the petitioner to the posts of Fire Operators was to take place subject to successful completion of the basic course and passing of the prescribed examination from FTC. In view of this clause the petitioners and so also Hawa Singh were asked to take the test but none of them qualified in the test. Three of the petitioners namely, Devender Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Jagbir Singh were also found indulging in mal-practices inasmuch as slips on which answers to various questions were written were recovered from their possession. The same were seized by the invigilator and were attached to their answer sheets. It was thus stated that none of the petitioners were entitled to any relief.
8. In so far as the case of Hawa Singh Khatri is concerned, it has not been disputed that he too was found in possession of a slip on which answers to some questions were written and his answer sheet was also seized by the Invigilator in the examination hall. However, in his case, it is stated that after he had withdrawn his name from Writ Petition (C) No. 1305/94 he made a representation to the General Manager (Personnel) with a request to consider his candidature for the post of Fire Operator. On receipt of representation his case was examined and it was found that Hawa Singh Khatri had secured 54% marks in the examination whereas the qualifying marks were 50%. It was also found that the chit recovered from his possession did not have any relevance to the questions answered by him. In this view of the matter he was permitted to again appear in the examination for the basic course at FTC without undergoing any training. He took the test and was declared successful. As such he was issued offer of appointment on February 26,1996. On these facts, the case of Hawa Singh Khatri was sought to be distinguished from that of the petitioner.
9. The petitioners though filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the respondents but significantly it contained no rebuttal to the allegation made against them that examination in terms of letter dated November 22,1991 was held in which they not only failed to qualify but three of them were found to be indulging in unfair means as answer slips were found from their possession. In response to these allegations, the petitioners stated nothing except reiterating the averments made by them in the writ petition.
10. Should the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioners to the posts of Fire Operators on the basis of training undergone by them notwithstanding the fact that they did not clear the test held subsequent to the training, and also, should the petitioners be treated on parity with Hawa Singh Khatri who was permitted to take the test along with final examination of 31st Batch Basic/re-orientation course for Fire Operators and on his qualifying the same was appointed as Fire Operator?
11. Admittedly the letter dated November 22, 1991 whereby the petitioners were informed that they were selected for basic course for Fire Operator in IAI contained a clause that their actual appointment was subject to successful completion of the basic course and passing of the prescribed examination from FTC. I say 'admittedly' for the reason that this letter of November 22, 1991 was annexed to the writ petition by the petitioners themselves. There can, therefore, be no dispute with regard to its correctness. As noticed hereinabove the petitioners have not specifically denied the allegations of the respondents that in terms of the aforesaid letter examination was conducted in which the petitioners not only failed but three of them also indulged in mal-practices inasmuch as they were found to be in possession of answer slips. The non-disclosure of these facts by the petitioners either in the earlier writ petition of 1994 and later in 1996, to say the least, is highly improper. Those who seek discretionary relief from the Court must come clean and if there is any suppression of material facts it will per-se dis-entitle them from any relief whatsoever. The petitioners have not only held back material facts from the Court but as noticed some of them were also found to be indulging in cheating. Hence, they do not deserve the relief prayed for.
12. Coming now to the case of Hawa Singh Khatri, the respondents have tried to draw a distinction between his case and that of the petitioners by stating in the counter affidavit and so also at the time of oral submissions that he had qualified the examination, whereas, the petitioners had not. It was also sought to be stated that the answers slips which were found from Hawa Singh Khatri did not relate to the questions attempted by him.
13. Whatever may be the explanation of the respondents in the case of Hawa Singh, it cannot be ignored that he too made an attempt to qualify the examination by means other than fair. To that extent, I feel, the respondents have not acquitted themselves with credibility. But then, the appointment of Hawa Singh Khatri has not been called into question by the petitioners. Therefore, I will say no more. What the petitioners are seeking is parity with Hawa Singh Khatri. Parity can be claimed on the basis of a legal right which has been made available to one but denied to others similarly placed. The petitioners must first establish their legal right to be appointed as Fire Operators. They must stand on their own legs. They have failed to establish that they were entitled to be appointed as Fire Operators solely on the basis of training undergone by them.
14. As a last ditch effort learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that if not for any other reason the petitioners may be appointed to the posts on humanitarian grounds and in this regard placed reliance on H.C. Puttaswamy v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka . This was a case where the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court had made appointments to the Karnataka Civil Services (Ministerial Posts) without consulting Public Service Commission and also by-passing the power of the District Judge. Although the action of Chief Justice was held to be improper and illegal the court did not do away with the services of those having been appointed on the ground that they were in service for the past 10 years and some of them had even earned higher promotions while some other were found to be more qualified than the minimum qualification required for the purpose. So far as the case of the petitioners is concerned no parallel can be drawn vis-a-vis the case relied upon by their counsel. The petitioners, as has been noticed above, failed in the examination which was one of the requirements before their actual appointments could take place.
15. For the foregoing reasons both the writ petitions have no merit and deserve to be dismissed. I do so accordingly.