Petitioner, omitted from a revised select list for Junior Executive (HR) promotion after a cancelled 2012 selection process revived by other candidates' litigation, sought mandamus for interview and consequential benefits. The court dismissed the petition on grounds of delay and laches and non-joinder of necessary parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Anjana Gosain & Ms. Shreya Manjari, Advocates for AAI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
1 “AAI”
W.P.(C) 1004/2026 Page 1 of 5
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 09/02/2026 at 12:56:02
candidates in W.P.(C) 3398/2013. By judgment dated 28th November, 2013, the cancellation was set aside and AAI was directed to finalise the select/merit list in continuation of the selection process. The said judgment ultimately attained finality and a revised select list was issued on 15th June, 2023.
‘a) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, directing the Respondent to grant the Petitioner an opportunity of interview for the post of Junior Executive (Human Resources) pursuant to the Departmental Examination held on 29.07.2012, in terms of Circular No. A.60011/20/2011-EH dated 20.06.2011.
b) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Executive (Human
2 “NCST”
W.P.(C) 1004/2026 Page 2 of 5
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 09/02/2026 at 12:56:02
Resources) by treating him as having been duly interviewed, and to grant him all consequential benefits, including notional seniority, pay fixation, arrears, and further promotions, at par with similarly situated candidates;
c) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, restraining the Respondent from transferring the Petitioner except in accordance with due process of law, during the pendency of the present writ petition.
d) Any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.’
W.P.(C) 1004/2026 Page 3 of 5
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 09/02/2026 at 12:56:02
however, four of those candidates, namely G. Aparna, Ganesan E., W. Morris Romel Roy and M. Sugeertha, either did not join service or their appointments were subsequently cancelled, as their names did not figure in the second list issued by the Respondent. He further asserts that in the revised list dated 15th June, 2023, issued in compliance with the decision in W.P.(C) 3398/2013, three new candidates, namely Anita Rana, Md. Samtullah Ansari and Damodaran, were added, while the name of M. Sugeertha was deleted.
W.P.(C) 1004/2026 Page 4 of 5
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 09/02/2026 at 12:56:02
that appointments against the promotional posts have already been made and, as the Petitioner himself pleads, the consequences now run into seniority and further promotions. The prayer to treat the Petitioner as interviewed, or to reopen the process for a solitary interview after more than a decade, is not merely impracticable, it would also unsettle a completed selection and the service positions of those already appointed and promoted. In challenges to selections and select lists, selected candidates whose rights stand to be affected are necessary parties, and non-impleadment is a serious defect.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 4, 2026/ hc
W.P.(C) 1004/2026 Page
5 of 5
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 09/02/2026 at 12:56:02
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking an interview and promotion for a 2012 departmental selection is barred by delay and laches.
Whether non-impleadment of appointed candidates as necessary parties bars the challenge to the revised select list.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Moti Lal Meena
Airports Authority of India
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
