MEHTAB SINGH Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby WP(C) No. 2826/2001 filed by the appellant seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination for the post of Trainee Technician has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to the writ petition and the present appeal lie in a narrow compass and may be summarised as under :-

(2.) The appellant is an ex-serviceman. He was discharged from the military service on account of his being a ?permanent low medical category? case. He appears to have applied for appointment as a Helper (Engg.) with the respondent Indian Airlines and was selected and appointed to that post in September, 1986. He was in due course promoted as Senior Helper (Engg.) and then Head Helper (Engg.) which post he is holding even now.

(3.) On 4th October, 1999, the respondent appears to have issued a notification for recruitment to the post of Trainee Technicians. The petitioner was one of those who applied for appointment against the said post. On the completion of the selection process, he was informed that since he had been appointed in the category of ?physically handicapped persons?, he could not be considered for appointment as a Trainee Technician. The petitioner's representation that he was not a physically handicapped person and that his selection should be treated to have been made in ex-serviceman category having evoked no response, he filed WP(C) No. 2826/2001 for a mandamus directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination for the post of Trainee Technician to be held on 5th and 6th May, 2001. That petition was heard and dismissed by a single Bench of this Court primarily on the ground that the appellant had not come with clean hands and had sought to mislead the Court by making a false statement. The Learned single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner-appellant had actually applied for appointment as a Helper (Engg.) in the category of physically handicapped persons and that he had, subsequent to his appointment, addressed a letter to the appointing authority expressing his gratitude for having been appointed against a vacancy in the quota of physically handicapped persons. Both these documents, according to the learned single Judge, were contrary to the averments made in the writ petition according to which the appellant had shown ignorance about his appointment being in the handicapped quota till he was informed about the same in March, 2001.