Jitesh Kumar Srivasatava Vs Airport Authority of India & Anr.

The present petition concerns the cancellation of the Petitioner’s candidature for the post of Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control) in the Airports Authority of India¹ (Respondent No. 1). The recruitment was initiated pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2025/CHQ dated 4^th April, 2025. The advertisement, inter alia, stipulated that candidates already serving in the Central Government, State Government, Autonomous Bodies or Public Sector Undertakings were required to produce a No Objection Certificate² from their present employer at the time of application verification. The relevant condition reads as under:

¶13

“ 8. SELECTION PROCESS:

¶14

(viii) Candidates already working in Central Government / State

¶15

1 “AAI”

¶16

2 “NOC”

¶17

W.P.(C) 8581/2026 Page 1 of 7

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 06/07/2026 at 10:34:59

¶20

Government / Autonomous Body / Public Sector Undertaking are required to produce “ NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ” from the present employer at the time of Application Verification, failing which his/her candidature will not be considered. Other claims such as undertaking to resign in the event of selection, acknowledged copy of applied NOC/Resignation Letter, Experience Certificate etc. shall not be considered in place of NOC.”

¶21

The Petitioner submitted his application on 25^th April, 2025. At that point, he was not employed with any Government organisation. In the meanwhile, while the recruitment process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement was still underway, the Petitioner was appointed as Technician (Trainee) at Ghaziabad under Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Prayagraj, pursuant to an appointment letter dated 18^th August, 2025, and joined service on 20^th August, 2025.

¶22

The record indicates that the Petitioner was conscious of the requirement of obtaining an NOC, which is evident from the fact that on 10^th December, 2025, he addressed a communication to the Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, intimating the authorities about the competitive examinations for which the results were awaited, including the recruitment conducted by Respondent No. 1, and requested issuance of an NOC.

¶23

Having qualified the Computer Based Test conducted on 14^th July, 2025, the Petitioner was issued a call letter dated 28^th January, 2026 requiring him to appear for application verification.

¶24

Admittedly, on the date of application verification, the Petitioner had not obtained an NOC from Respondent No. 2. Consequently, on 18^th February, 2026, he furnished an undertaking agreeing to submit the requisite

¶25

W.P.(C) 8581/2026 Page 2 of 7

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 06/07/2026 at 10:34:59

¶28

NOC within seven days, failing which his candidature would stand cancelled.

¶29

Thereafter, on 23^rd February, 2026, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Senior Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer, Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, seeking issuance of an NOC. He also addressed an email dated 24^th February, 2026 to the Recruitment Cell of Respondent No. 1 requesting extension of time to furnish the NOC. A further communication dated 5^th March, 2026 was also addressed reiterating his inability to produce the NOC within the stipulated period while asserting that, since the recruitment process had commenced prior to his joining the Railways, he was not required to obtain an NOC under the terms of the advertisement.

¶30

Upon the Petitioner’s failure to furnish the NOC within the stipulated period, the final results were declared on 6^th April, 2026 and the Petitioner’s candidature was not considered.

¶31

Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner initially approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The said petition was disposed of on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶32

In light of the liberty granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow, the Petitioner has now filed the instant petition. 10. Counsel for the Petitioner assails the impugned communication principally on the ground that the Petitioner’s candidature has been rejected on an unduly technical interpretation of Clause 8(viii) of the advertisement. The Petitioner was not employed in any Government department or Public Sector Undertaking on the date of submitting his application, and therefore,

¶33

W.P.(C) 8581/2026 Page 3 of 7

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 06/07/2026 at 10:34:59

¶36

Clause 8(viii) had no application. His subsequent appointment under Respondent No. 2 could not render him liable to furnish an NOC, nor could the undertaking dated 18^th February, 2026 override the terms of the advertisement.

¶37

It is further submitted that, in any event, the Petitioner acted with due diligence. Immediately after furnishing the undertaking, he approached Respondent No. 2 for issuance of the NOC and also addressed communications dated 24^th February, 2026 and 5^th March, 2026 to Respondent No. 1 explaining his inability to procure the NOC within the stipulated period and requesting extension of time. The delay was occasioned solely on account of the parent department not issuing the NOC and that no lapse is attributable to the Petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Narender Singh v. State of Haryana ,³ and Laxmi Saroj v. State of U.P . ,⁴ to contend that a candidate cannot be penalised for circumstances beyond his control.

¶38

Per contra , counsel for AAI, supports the impugned action and submits that the Petitioner admittedly failed to furnish the NOC despite being granted adequate opportunity to do so. The requirement contained in Clause 8(viii) is attracted with reference to the Petitioner’s status on the date of application verification and not on the date of submission of the application. Since the Petitioner was admittedly serving under Respondent No. 2 when the documents were verified, production of an NOC was an essential condition of eligibility. Having failed to comply with that condition despite furnishing an undertaking to produce the document within seven

¶39

3 (2022) 3 SCC 286.

¶40

4 (2022) 17 SCC 477.

¶41

W.P.(C) 8581/2026 Page 4 of 7

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 06/07/2026 at 10:34:59

¶44

days, the Petitioner’s candidature was rightly rejected. It is further submitted that strict adherence to the conditions of recruitment has consistently been recognised by this Court, and reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision in Gaurav Paliwal v. Central Warehousing Corporation & Ors .⁵

¶45

The Court has considered the rival submissions. The material facts are largely undisputed. The Petitioner was conscious of the requirement of obtaining an NOC, as is evident from his communication dated 10^th December, 2025 addressed to Respondent No. 2. Nevertheless, by the date of application verification, he had admittedly joined Respondent No. 2 and did not possess an NOC from his employer. Conscious of this deficiency, he furnished an undertaking on 18^th February, 2026 agreeing to submit the NOC within seven days, failing which his candidature would stand cancelled.

¶46

It is true that the Petitioner thereafter addressed communications to Respondent No. 2 seeking issuance of an NOC and also requested Respondent No. 1 to extend the time prescribed under the undertaking. However, despite the lapse of considerable time, the NOC was not furnished. Significantly, even as on the date of hearing of the present petition, no NOC has been issued by Respondent No. 2.

¶47

The Petitioner’s principal submission that Clause 8(viii) was inapplicable since he was not in Government employment on the date of submitting his application does not merit acceptance. Even assuming the Petitioner’s interpretation of Clause 8(viii) to be arguable, the fact remains that at the stage of application verification, he accepted the requirement of furnishing an NOC, sought time to comply therewith, and was granted

¶48

5 2023 SCC OnLine Del 46.

¶49

W.P.(C) 8581/2026 Page 5 of 7

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

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 06/07/2026 at 10:34:59

¶52

sufficient opportunity to do so. Yet, the NOC was neither furnished within the stipulated period nor has it been produced till date.

¶53

The Petitioner’s explanation that the NOC could not be procured because Respondent No. 2 failed to issue the same does not advance his case. The challenge in the present proceedings is to the decision of Respondent No. 1 rejecting the Petitioner’s candidature. Having granted the Petitioner adequate opportunity to furnish the requisite NOC, Respondent No. 1 cannot be faulted for proceeding in accordance with the recruitment conditions. Whether Respondent No. 2 was justified in not issuing the NOC is a separate issue and does not arise for consideration in the present proceedings.

¶54

The reliance placed by the Petitioner upon Narender Singh and Laxmi Saroj is misplaced. There can be no quarrel with the principle laid down therein that a candidate should not be prejudiced for a delay not attributable to them. However, both decisions turned on their own peculiar facts. In Narender Singh , the candidate had applied for the NOC well in advance, approached the High Court before the interview, was permitted to participate in the selection process pursuant to interim orders, and ultimately produced the NOC before appointments were made. Likewise, in Laxmi Saroj , the candidates had completed all steps required of them and the delay was only in the issuance of registration by the competent Council after the requisite NOC had already been obtained. In the present case, however, the Petitioner, despite being aware of the requirement, voluntarily furnished an undertaking to submit the NOC within seven days, sought extensions of time for compliance, yet admittedly has not been able to produce the NOC till date. This is, therefore, not a case of delayed production of a document

¶55

W.P.(C) 8581/2026 Page 6 of 7

¶56

This is a digitally signed order.

¶57

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 06/07/2026 at 10:34:59

¶58

eventually obtained, but of a continuing failure to furnish the document itself.

¶59

Recruitment to public posts is necessarily governed by the conditions contained in the advertisement, and the recruiting authority is required to apply those conditions uniformly to all candidates. A candidate who admittedly fails to fulfil an essential requirement of the recruitment process cannot, as a matter of course, seek a direction requiring the recruiting authority to overlook such non-compliance. In these circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of Respondent No. 1 to reject the Petitioner’s candidature. The Court is also informed that pursuant to the declaration of the final results, the selected candidates have already joined service and the training programme has commenced.

¶60

In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶61

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶62

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶63

JULY 2, 2026 as

¶64

W.P.(C) 8581/2026 Page 7 of 7

¶65

This is a digitally signed order.

¶66

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 06/07/2026 at 10:34:59

Jitesh Kumar Srivasatava v. Airport Authority of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitesh Kumar Srivasatava v. Airport Authority of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Yadav Vs Union Public Service Commission

Dr Smita Arora Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ram Kishan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sohan Dass and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gourav Jain Vs G N C T of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

M/S Global Tabbac Legacy Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Riddhi Education Trust Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

M/S Ak Construction Company Vs National Highways Authoity of India through Its Chairman & Anr.

Dr Smita Arora Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ms Rupa Vs Indian Bank & Ors.

Vijay Bishnoi Vs Competition Commission of India & Ors.

Virender Kumar and Ors. Vs Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Anr.

Kartik Mann Vs Union Public Services Commission

Bijender Vs G N C T of Delhi & Ors.