1 2026:CGHC:17048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2553 of 2018 1 - Deo Singh S/o Shri Chandan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bhuwalpur, Post Office Bagharra, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Aviation, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Aviation, Chhattisgarh Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Abhishek Singh, S/o Shri Surendra Pal Singh, R/o House No. 1439, Ifco Chowk, Gurgaon (Haryana)., District : Gurgaon, Haryana ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “1.This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Helicopter) (Maintenance) and further set aside the list of eligible/ineligible candidates wherein name of the petitioner appeared at serial no.3 declared ineligible annexed with the list of notice of objection dated 14.11.2017 and also set aside the communication/memo -2- dated 15.02.2018 by which the representation/objection of the petitioner has been rejected by Respondent No.2. 2. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further hold that the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Engineer (Helicopter) (Maintenance) without framing any rule by the State of Chhattisgarh is against the rules and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent/State Authority to reject the candidature of the Respondent No.3 as he is not resident of State of Chhattisgarh according to term & condition of the advertisement. 4. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record of selection process pertaining to the appointment order and selection. 5. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The facts in brief are that an advertisement was issued for the post of Assistant Engineer (Helicopter) (Maintenance) on contractual basis on 14.08.2017. The required eligibility criteria was the current and valid Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) Licence issued by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in Category B1 on A- 109 Helicopter installed with PW 206/207 Engines having at least 2 years of experience as certifying staff on Agusta 109 Helicopter. The petitioner and other candidates submitted their application forms and thereafter, list of candidates was published on 09.11.2017 and at the same time, objections were also invited. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the required DGCA AME Licence for Agusta A - 109. The petitioner raised an objection before the respondent 3 authorities and it was turned down vide order dated 15.02.2018. 3. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was possessing Aircraft Maintenance Engineer’s Licence No.14887 issued by the Government of India, Civil Aviation Department. He would further submit that said certificate was issued on 19.01.2016 which was valid and effective on the date of advertisement and even thereafter. He would contend that various authorities of Civil Aviation have issued experience certificates in favour of the petitioner, wherein, it is observed that the petitioner has gained experience on Agusta 109 EP Helicopter fitted with P & W 206 C Engine and associated with Store Keeping. It is argued by Mr. Deshmukh that respondent No.3, who was selected, was a resident of State of Haryana, whereas, as per clause 6 of the advertisement, the candidate should be resident of State of Chhattisgarh. It is also argued by Mr. Deshmukh that though the petitioner possessed a valid licence but the respondent authorities rejected his candidature malafide and in arbitrary manner. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Saini, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions. He would submit that according to clause 6 of the advertisement, the candidate should be resident of State of Chhattisgarh and in absence of suitable candidate, the authorities could have relaxed the said condition. Mr. Saini would further submit that the required qualification as per clause 1 of the advertisement was Current and valid Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) Licence issued by -4- the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in Category B1 on A- 109 Helicopter installed with PW 206/207 Engines. Mr. Saini would fairly submit that in the licence submitted by the petitioner, it is nowhere stated that he had experience to maintain Category B-1 on A-109 Helicopter installed with PW 206/207 engines. Mr. Saini would refer to document Annexure R/1 “Civil Aviation Requirements CAR- 145. He would submit that according to AMC 145.A.35(a) Certifying staff and support staff, holding a CAR 66 licence with the relevant type/group rating, or a national qualification in the case of components, does not mean by itself that the holder is qualified as certifying staff and/or support staff. The organisation is responsible to assess the competence of the holder for the scope of maintenance to be authorised. He would further submit that according to this clause, the organization shall ensure that certifying staff and support staff have an adequate understanding of the relevant aircraft and/or components to be maintained and the person has received training and has been successfully assessed on the type of aircraft or component; the differences on the particular model/variant and on the particular configuration. Mr. Saini would contend that as the petitioner failed to produce licence to maintain a particular type of Aircraft or its component, therefore, his candidature was rejected. He would further contend that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The Civil Aviation Department issues a licence according to the 5 provisions of Civil Aviation Requirements CAR-145. This clause “AMC 145.A.35(a) Certifying staff and support staff which reads as under : “AMC 145.A.35(a) Certifying staff and support staff : 1. Holding a CAR 66 licence with the relevant type/group rating, or a national qualification in the case of components, does not mean by itself that the holder is qualified to be authorised as certifying staff and/or support staff. The organisation is responsible to assess the competence of the holder for the scope of maintenance to be authorised. 2. The sentence "the organization shall ensure that certifying staff and support staff have an adequate understanding of the relevant aircraft and/or components to be maintained together with the associated organisation procedures" means that the person has received training and has been successfully assessed on the type of aircraft or component, the differences on the particular model/variant and on the particular configuration.” 7. A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that the licence can be issued if staff have an adequate understanding of the relevant aircraft and such person has received training and has been successfully assessed particular type of aircraft or its component or on the differences on the particular model/variant as well as particular configuration. 8. In the present case, a perusal of the licence issued in favour of the petitioner would show that it was not issued to maintain a particular type of aircraft or its component as required in the advertisement. Therefore, the respondent authorities rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. -6- 9. The relaxation has been extended to respondent No.3 according to the provision of Clause 6 of the advertisement, wherein, it is stated that in absence of suitable candidate, the requirement of resident of State of Chhattisgarh can be relaxed. The respondent authorities have exercised later part of clause 6 of the advertisement. 10.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11.Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha