(Prayer in W.A.No.446 of 2016: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the judgment dated 28/10/2015 made in W.P.No.33 of 2015.W.P.No.22421 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the investigating report by the second respondent dated 23/3/2016 to quash the investigation report in so far as para 6.2 about the petitioner is also liable to inform the second respondent that training not completed as per mandatory syllabus of the Air India Ltd and consequently, direct the second respondent to cancel the Airbus - 320 endorsement obtained on 13/7/2011 within a time frame.W.P.No.25513 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to repay all the training cost including boarding, lodging and additional training cost paid towards Airbus - 320 training from the year 2010 with interest and subsequently directing to redo the Airbus - 320 endorsement training and absorb as a "Senior Trainee Pilot" in permanent employee cadre and to recover all cost of training as per Service rule with a time frame.)Common JudgmentSubramonium Prasad, J.1. The appellant is the writ petitioner. She is seeking to challenge the order dated 28/10/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33 of 2015, by which the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition which was one for a writ of mandamus directing the Air India Limited to give a permanent job to the appellant as a Trainee Pilot, taking into consideration the wrong endorsement which was given to the petitioner on the basis of a wrong report given by Air India that she is competent fly the Airbus - 320 Aircraft which she was not because of the deficient training given to her.2. Writ Petition No.22421 of 2016 has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the investigating report by the second respondent dated 23/3/2016 to quash the investigation report in so far as para 6.2 about the petitioner is also liable to inform the second respondent that training not completed as per mandatory syllabus of the Air India Ltd and consequently, direct the second respondent to cancel the Airbus - 320 endorsement obtained on 13/7/2011 within a time frame.3. Writ Petition No.25513 of 2016 has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to repay all the training cost including boarding, lodging and additional training cost paid towards Airbus - 320 training from the year 2010 with interest and subsequently directing to redo the Airbus - 320 endorsement training and absorb as a "Senior Trainee Pilot" in permanent employee cadre and to recover all cost of training as per Service rule with a time frame.4. The facts in brief leading to the writ petitions and the writ appeal are as under:-a. The petitioner a B.Com graduate wanted to a Commercial Pilot. She had studied and qualified in Physics and Mathematics in her Higher Secondary level prior to her joining in B.Com, which was sufficient for her to get a Commercial Pilot licence. She obtained a Commercial Pilot licence. The Air India Limited invited applications for specialised training in Air bus and A-320 Air Crafts. The petitioner's husband who is a Power of Attorney holder and was appeared in Court as the Power of Attorney Holder of his wife is himself a Pilot. The petitioner applied for the training programme. The training was to be conducted at the Central Training Establishment Air India Limited at Hyderabad. The petitioner was called for an interview. The cost of the training was Rs.24,81,755/-, which included 10.3% service tax. The petitioner was selected for the programme. 23 pilots including the petitioner were trained.b. It is the case of the petitioner that the Central Training Establishment started giving training for all 23 pilots in the first batch, including the petitioner on 10.05.2010 at CTE, Hyderabad. The training has been described as Phase-I as per the training brochure. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No.19 in the merit list. The second Phase training started which was imparted in a Simulator of A-320. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not been trained properly. For the sake of brevity, we are not highlighting the minute details of the complaints made by the petitioner in the writ petition regarding the allegations levelled by the petitioner on the shoddy nature of training imparted by the centre. The petitioner was imparted final training Phase-III at Chennai under the supervision of the sixth respondent on 05.06.2011 and completed the same on the same day, which is in violation of procedure issued by the Centre itself. It is stated that though the petitioner waited for A-320 endorsement in licence from the fourth respondent/DGCA, the Centre did not forward the papers for making such an endorsement. However, the third respondent has informed the petitioner through e-mail dated 15.06.2011 to pay an additional amount of Rs.44,120/- towards extra training imparted on 24.04.2011 and there were series of communications between the petitioner and the third respondent and on account of the same, the petitioner has lost her opportunity to get employment in Indigo Airlines. It is stated that the petitioner has sent a cheque for Rs.44,120/- and also sent an e-mail praying for waiver of the said amount on account of Air India Pilot strike.c. The petitioner got A-320 Type Rating endorsement on 13.07.2011 very late because of which she could not appear in an examination held conducted by Indigo Airlines. Further, it is stated that because of the shoddy and incomplete training imparted by the Centre, there were rumors that the training of the petitioner has not been completed in A320. The petitioner states that on coming to know of the rumors, she requested the third respondent to send the details about the training programme but she was not provided with any details. Since there was some genuine dispute over the claim of additional amount of Rs.44,120/- towards extra training imparted, the third respondent sent a communication dated 13.10.2011 informing that the husband of the petitioner, who is also a Pilot in the services of the second respondent, was removed from the position of Check Pilot for having issued stop instructions with regard to the payment of the above said amount and her husband was kept off from duty from 29.08.2011.d. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that more than 30 days were taken to send the document to the fourth respondent DGCA for getting the endorsement of A-320 in the licence in respect of the petitioner, whereas for 22 other A-320 trainee pilots in the petitioner batch, it took only 2 days to forward to the fourth respondent for endorsement of A-320 in the licence and consequently, the petitioner lost the chance of getting employment in Indigo Airlines. Information sought for by the petitioner under Right to Information Act as to the 8 training syllabus for A-320 was also not given citing the reason that it was the intellectual property of Air India. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that the third respondent intentionally did not complete/impart the training to the petitioner and belatedly forwarded the relevant papers and purposefully delayed the process for getting A320 endorsement in the licence of the petitioner and thereby the second respondent is under obligation to give permanent job to the petitioner to start her career as trainee pilot, by taking into consideration the falsification of documents in A-320 endorsement in the training given by the respondents 2 and 3 in Phase-II.e. It is alleged by the petitioner that neither in Phase-1 nor in Phase-II, training syllabus was provided to the petitioner to show that training is conducted as per Type Rating Training Organization [TRTO] Approval Manual issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation [DGCA]/fourth respondent and she has also requisite hours of training and check to get A-320 endorsement. The third respondent did not give the syllabus to 79 other A-320 trainee pilots who had undergone the training in subsequent batches also and further that the respondents had completed the A-320 endorsement training in Phase-II in a haphazard manner.f. On completion of training, the petitioner was given a certificate from the Central Training Establishment, Hyderabad, certifying that for the Air - 320 Aircraft, all the requirements for carrying out training/checks as per the training manual/approval from DGCA have been followed. Accordingly, an endorsement was made on the license of the appellant that she certified for flying in A-320 Aircraft as a co-pilot. The endorsement is dated 13/7/2011. The petitioner states that she has not been able to get any job due to the delay on the part of the centre to furnish the information to the DGCA. She also states that since Air India and the Centre which is run by Air India which has imparted the training to the petitioner has endorsed that she has acquired training in A -320 Aircraft, she should be given a job in Air India. The petitioner therefore, filed writ petition 33 of 2015 with the following prayer:-"to direct the second respondent to give a permanent job starting career as a “Trainee Pilot” taking into consideration the falsification of documents in A-320 Endorsement training given by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents in Phase-2 with a vitiated malafide intention, which was found by the 4 th respondent on 05-09-2014.5. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 28/10/2015 held that the grievance of the petitioner is that she was under impression that she was not given proper training as per the TRTA Manual and she was forced to undergo additional training. The learned Single Judge observed that the respondents 1 and 4 had considered the complaint made by the petitioner that there were falsification of documents in respect of A-320 endorsement training given to her in Phase-II and they have taken a stand that there was no deficiency in the documents submitted by the Air India for the purpose of getting A-320 endorsement in the licence of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, was of the opinion that it is evident that the grant of licence to the petitioner was not proper and it could be because of lapse on the part of Air India or the petitioner or both, which needs to be investigated. The learned Single Judge found that endorsement was made on 13.07.2011 stating that the petitioner has successfully undergone training for A-320 aircraft and though the normal procedure is that the petitioner has to collect course completion certificate and licence with endorsement from the third respondent, she used her husband's influence, who happens to be a Pilot of the second respondent and presently Deputy Manager (Operations), managed to get those documents from the office of the fourth respondent directly. Insofar as the loss of job opportunity of the petitioner to become a Pilot in the services of the second respondent is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner cannot claim any right to be appointed. The learned Single Judge, therefore, ordered for a probe to be conducted by DGCA regarding the documents submitted by Air India certifying that the petitioner has undergone the necessary training on A-320 Aircraft. The learned Single Judge held that as and when the result of the probe/investigation is made known to her, she as well as the other respondents are entitled to work out their remedy strictly in accordance with law. This order has been challenged in W.A.No.446 of 2016.6. Pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the DGCA conducted a probe. The entire investigation report is reproduced hereunder:-"Introduction:-Central Training Establishment (CTE) Hyderabad M/s Air India vide letter no. CTE/OTD/74/2/21 dated 01/04/2014 informed to DGCA that Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar while undergoing for A330 type rating training in 2011 had done only 03 PNF (Pilot Not Flying) session on simulator against the standard requirement of 06 session as per the approved TRTO manual and this fact came into the notice of M/s Air India while replying for a RTI application in respect of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar, the information was sought by Ms. Visalakshi under RTI Act 2005.DGCA initiated investigation in the matter, however in the meantime Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar filed a Writ Petition No. 33/2015 , Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. DGCA was respondent No. 4 and Air India was respondent No. 02 in the said writ petition.Hon’ble high court of Madras passed an order in the WP 33/2015 and directed DGCA to complete the investigation and communicate the decision to the petitioner as well as to the other official respondents.In compliance of direction of the Hon'ble High Court and in order to finalize the pending investigation, DGCA vidv o.rde? No C 18011/9/3016 - 411 dated 07.01.2016 constituted a committee to investigate the matter and submit the report.The composition of the committee is as follows:1. Capt. Sandeep Rana, Sr. Flight Operations Inspector2. Shri. Rakesh Singh, Deputy Director of Operations2. FACTS OF THE CASE2.1 Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar CPL No.6082 had done A320 type rating (raiding from CTE Hyderabad (An Air India Training establishment) as an external candidate, her training was started from 11/05/2010 and completed on26/05/2011.2.2 M/s Air India vide letter no CTE/OTD/LKK/246 dated 05/07/2011 submitted documents in DGCA with a request for endorsement of A320 type rating on CPL No. 6082 of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar.2.3 The submitted documented were examined and processed and A320 type endorsement was granted to Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar, CPL No. 6082 on 13/07/2011.2.4 Central Training Establishment (CTE) Hyderabad M/s Air India vide letter no, CTE/OTD/74/2/21 dated 01/04/2014 informed to DGCA that Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar while undergoing for A320 type rating training in 2011 had done only 03 PNF (Pilot Not Flying) session on simulator against the standard requirement of 06 session as per the approved TRTO manual and this fact came into the notice of M/s Air India while replying for a RTI application in respect of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar, the RTI information was sought by Ms. Visalakshi under RTI Act 2005.2.5 On receipt of the said information DGCA vide letter No I-1S34/2006-LII Dated 16/07/2014 directed Air India to investigate the matter and submit report tO DGCA and copy of this communication was also sent to Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar.2.6 In response to DGCA letter Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar submitted a series of emails. Copies of the same are enclosed as Appendix-I to this report.2.7 Air India also submitted their reply vide no. CTE/EDT/933 dated 22/12/2014, thereby submitting the statement of Capt. M.S. Bodhi end Capt. N.J.Devecha, who were the training captains (instructors /examiners) involved in A320 type endorsement training of Tr. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar CPL No. 6082. Copy of the same enclosed as Appendix-II to this report.2.8 This office had also asked Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar to appear for the personal hearing before Shri. Lalit Gupta, Joint Director General (DGCA), but she did not appear citing some personal issues, however she agreed to provide any information sought by DGCA through e-mail. Copies of the emails from her are enclosed at Appendix-I.2.9 Thereafter, Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar preferred to file a Writ Petition No. 33/2015 in the matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, seeking the following reliefs:-a. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of interim direction directing the 4th respondent (DGCA) to file a comprehensive report on A320 type rating i.r.o. Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar .b. The Hon’ble Court pleased to issue a writ, or direction in the nature writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to give a permanent job starting career as a "Trainee Pilot" taking into the consideration the falsification of documents in A320 endorsement.2.10 However, In the Judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras directed DGCA to complete the investigation and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner as well as to the other official respondents.3. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION3.1. Documents relied upon:(i) a. Training manual of CTE Hyderabad, M/s Air Indiab. Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), Section 7, Series B, Part XIX. Dated 22/03/2012.c. Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), Section 8, Series F, Part I dated 13/02/2013.(ii) Statements of individuals recorded during the process of investigation through personal hearing and via emails.3.2 The committee decided to focus on the following aspects of the case:a) What were the DGCA requirement forA320 type rating training?. Whether the same were followed?b) Whether Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar was aware of the fact that she was short of the required PNF sessions as part of her training?c) What is the current status of her A3S0 type rating?3.3 In order to conduct a fair investigation and to identify the lapses at applicant and TRTO end the committee decided to call following persons involved in training, documentation and submission of documents in DGCA i.r.o. A320 type rating training of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar for personal hearing. The principal of natural justice was also followed and every individual got a fair opportunity to explain their role and circumstances.1. Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar - Individual2. Capt. Sivaramakrishnan, Air India3. Capt. N.J. Divecha, Air India4. Capt. Sangita Kabra Bangai, Air India5. Capt. M.S. Bodhi, Air India6. Mr. K. Shanta Nanda Prasad, Air India3.4 Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar (Individual) and Capt. N.J. Divecha (Air India) did not appear for the personal hearing. However, Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar has send an e-mail stating that she was unable to come for personal hearing before the investigation committee and ready to co-operate for the investigation by replying to e-mail queries and Capt. N.J. Divccha has also submitted his statement through email in this Matter.4. ANALYSIS OF FACTS4.1 DGCA granted A320 Type rating endorsement on the CPL 6082 of Capt Lakshmi Krishna Kumai on the basis of submission of documents by Air India, which clearly indicated that she met all the requirement of A320 type endorsement including all PNF sessions.4.2 Statements of Capt. Sivaramakrishnan indicates that Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar has not undergone for 03 PNF (1 during FBS + 2 during FFS) session.4.3 During the investigation, on examination of documents it was found that her CA 40, checks were conducted by Capt. Sivaramakrishnan, however PNP training session was not carried out during CA 40 checks as per the requirement of training manual. Which is a lapse on the part of Capt. Sivaramakrishnan.4.4 On further investigation into the matter Capt. Sangita Kabra Bangar statement was taken and viz a viz training documents were review and it is observed that Capt Lakshmi Krishna Kumar FBS training was carried out by Capt. Sangita Kabra Bangar and all the 6 FBS session were marked with unsatisfactory comments for PF which indicates that her performance was poor during the training.The training detail sheet submitted by Air India further reveals that Capt. Sangita Kabra Bangar did not conducted PNF training in 6th FBS session for Capt Lakshmi Krishna Kumar on 09/04/2011 however, in training booklet it is marked as “carried out (V)". Which is a lapse on the part of Capt. Sangita Kabra Bangar. One additional PF only FBS training (7th FBS) session was also given to Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar by Capt. M.S. Bodhi and after that she was cleared for FFS training.4.5 FFS training session of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar was conducted by Capt. N.J. Devecha and all the 06 FFS session were completed by him. However the training detail sheet reveals that Capt. N.J. Devecha did not conducted her PNF training during her 5&6 FFS training sessions on 18/06/2011 and 18/03/2011 respectively and training booklet these sessions were marked as “carried out (V)".Which is a lapse on the part of Capt, N.J. Divecha.Capt. N.J. Divecha was her instructor and he was the then General Manager (Trainings) of CTE Hyderabad stated in his statement that "as documented in her training booklet some PNF session could not be carried out as it was not mandatory at that point of time. (Refer DGCA CAR series B part XIX issue I dated 22 March 2012) In respect of the FFS sessions 5 and 6 of Tr. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar were carried out by the undersigned the PNF session were inadvertently marked by oversight."The above statement is not correct, as per DGCA approved, training Manual of CTE Hyderabad clearly specify the requirements of PNF/PM session for A320 type, rating training. Copy of the relevant portion of training manual is Appendix III.Analysis of the facts reveals that Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar during A320 type rating training had not completed three (03) PNF sessions which were the mandatory for A320 type endorsement training. M/s Air India submitted the documents with the falsified entries for the above explained PNF sessions and on the basis of that Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar CPL No. 6082 could obtain A320 type endorsement on her CPL from DGCA.Further, The aspects of above mentioned para 3.2 were also examined on the basis of records/statements/emails/TRTO manual and the documents provided to the committee, the analysis of which is as follows.4.7.1 What were the DGCA requirements for A320 type rating training?CTE Hyderabad is a Type Rating Training Organization (TRTO) approved by DGCA and TRTO was to conduct all the training and session as per their DGCA approved Training manual. Further, the training manual indicates the requirements of PM (Pilot Monitoring)/PNF (Pilot not Flying) as a mandatory part of A320 type rating training syllabus.However, Examination Of documents and statements of above mentioned individuals indicates that during A320 endorsement training 3 PNF (1 during FBS + 2 during FFS) session and PNF during CA 40 checks of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar were not conducted by CTE Hyderabad which is the deviation from the standard syllabus given in training manual.CTE Hyderabad M/s Air India has later acknowledged the lapses and 3tated that it was not deliberate and the prevailing circumstances (such as the performance of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar, ICPA agitation etc.) were some factors leading to the omission of 3 PNF sessions by Examiners/ Instructor of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar.4.7.2 Whether Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar was aware of the fact that she was short of the required PNF sessions as part of her training?Fair opportunities were given to Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar but she did not appeared for personal hearing during the investigations however she has submitted series of her communications through Email (Copies of the same are enclosed as Appendix-I to this report.)From her e-mail communications reveals that there is a History of dispute between the parties (i.e. Air India and Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar), it also appears that Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar was aware of her unattended PNF sessions and improper training.An attachment of Email of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar dated 28/08/2014 addressed to DGCA has come Into the notice of the committee, this letter was written by MS Krishna Kumar husband of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar dated 34/11/2011 to CMD, Air India on her behalf, wherein he has mentioned that "While the office was preparing to send the licence they observed that she DID NOT DO PNP (Pilot not flying i.e. to help the other pilot in the cockpit). Till date office did not tell clearly about her PNF .But Capt Shivaram purposely knowing on the subject was keeping quite reasons known only to him. . There are other e-mails which also indicate that Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar as well as CTE Hyderabad M/s Air India were aware of said lapses. Copies of the same are enclosed as Appendix-I to this report.In her e-mail dated 04/09/2014 Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar, CPL 6082, has stated, "I have informed C.T.E by way of notice that I shall be informing D.G.C.A voluntarily about P.N.F (P.M) not completed after R.T.I reply, since my syllabus was not given to me or any other trainee pilots I was not knowing about my syllabus Since I sent the voluntary disclosure, notice to C.T.E. immediately C.T.E wrote letter on 01/04/2014 stating my 3 session of P.N.F (P .M) records hot available. For your kind information both P.F and P.N.F. (P M) records as per D.G.C.A to acquire Airbus 320 Endorsement was done on same day so it is indirectly mentioned that I have not done those trainings, since Capt. Shivaramakrishnan only did my checks he. also did not do my P.N.F(P.M) check.Also the details as provided by Capt Lakshmi Krishna Kumar vide her email dated 11.08.2014 in respect of RTI query dated 10.02.2014 relating to Capt Lakshmi Krishna Kumar filed by one Ms V. Visalakshi to CTE Hyderabad clearly indicates that she was aware of some shortfall in PNF sessions or at least had some doubts in this regard.Further, the copy of RTI reply dated 04/04/2014 from Air India to the above RTI request clearly reveals that the reply nowhere mentions anything about any shortfall in P.N.F. sessions during the training. As a matter of fact CTE Hyderabad denied the information as being third party. Therefore, the statement made by Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar that after getting the RTI reply she sent a notice to CTE Hyderabad that she will disclose the information to D.G.C.A voluntarily about P.N.F (P.M) not completed further corroborates the fact that she was probably aware of the shortfall of PNF sessions.It is pertinent to mention that DGCA received first communication in the matter from Air India regarding improper A320 type training of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar.4.7.3 What is the status of her A320 type rating?Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar, CPL 6082, got the A320 endorsement on 13/07/2011 and as per prevailing CAR Section 8 Series F part I. if the pilot does not maintained recency on the type endorsement expires and Individual has to undergo for the full type rating training again.In the normal case any pilot would comply with recency requirement as CAR Section 8 Series F part I to maintain the currency of type rating endorsement on the licence, however Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar has not maintained recency requirements for :A320 type rating, therefore her A320 type rating has already been expired on 28/05/2014.As a matter of fact even if the subject endorsement of A320 was on the basis of complete training as per the TRTO manual, the rating obtained by her would have been lapsed due to non-complying with recency requirements as per CAR Section 8 Series F part I.5. CONCLUSION5.1 CTE Hyderabad has not conducted the A320 type rating training of Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar as per the approved training manual which is a lapse on the part of CTE Hyderabad.5.2 Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar was aware of lapse in the training however and she never disclosed the same to DGCA in past5.3 Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar has not maintained the recency requirements as per CAR Section 8 Series F part I, therefore her A32Q type rating has already expired6. RECOMMENDATION:6.1 Air India should ensure that CTE Hyderabad shall strictly follow the Rule and regulation while imparting training and there shall be a proper monitoring system in place to avoid such recurrence in future.6.2 Suitable action may be taken against CTE Hyderabad and Capt. Lakshmi Krishna Kumar as deemed fit."7. A perusal of the report would show serious lapse on the part of the Air India in the manner of imparting training to Pilots. The training imparted by Air India seems to be falling short of the standards fixed by it. It is appalling that flights are being flown by Pilots who have got endorsements license on the basis of serious deficits, as mentioned in the report, through a shortened and compressed method of imparting knowledge. The report shows that the petitioner had not even completed mandatory sessions and Air India had submitted documents with falsified entries. The training was not conducted in accordance with the standard syllabus given in the manual. It is not known as to how many persons like the petitioner have managed to get certificates from the third respondent and are flying Air crafts carrying hundreds of passengers and putting their life at risk. In view of the investigation report conducted by the DGCA, we direct the DGCA and the first respondent/Union of India to carry out a detailed investigation on the working of the third respondent Centre and if necessary, take immediate action for either allowing or discontinuing permission to conduct training programmes for Pilots.8. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.22421 of 2016, praying for the records of the investigating report dated 23/3/2016 conducted by the DGCA in pursuance to the order dated 28/10/2015 passed by the High Court in W.P.No.33of 2015 and to quash the investigation report in so far as para 6.2 about the petitioner is also liable to inform the second respondent that training not completed as per mandatory syllabus of the Air India Ltd and consequently, direct the second respondent to cancel the Airbus
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
- 320 endorsement obtained on 13/7/2011 within a time frame. The petitioner did not join the investigation. The manner in which the petitioner has got the licence is a suspect. The petitioner's husband got the licence himself which he could not in the normal course. Further it is not known as to whether the petitioner herself was responsible in getting the entries falsified and she has started crying wolf when the cat was out of the bag that she has not got the proper training for A-320 Aircraft. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not give any explanation in the enquiry, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against Air India to the advantage of the appellant and the prayer sought for by her for quashing the paragraphs in the investigating report which are against her cannot be granted. Since the DGCA itself has found that she has not got proper training, the endorsement given to her on her license regarding A-320 Aircraft, should be cancelled. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.9. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.25513 of 2016 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to repay all the training cost including boarding, lodging and additional training cost paid towards Airbus - 320 training from the year 2010 with interest and subsequently directing to redo the Airbus - 320 endorsement training and absorb as a "Senior Trainee Pilot" in permanent employee cadre and to recover all cost of training as per Service rule with a time frame.10. Air India has not challenged the report of the DGCA. It is therefore, accepted by the Air India that the petitioner has not been given proper training. Air India in their counter in the writ petition have sought to justify that the licence granted to the petitioner was proper. This insistence on the part of Air India that proper training was imparted to the petitioner has been found to be wrong. The petitioner is therefore, entitled to the refund of the fees which she has paid to Air India. Air India cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong by not imparting proper training and at the same time, keep the entire fee realised by it for imparting the training. As found in the report, serious lapses have been found by the DGCA regarding falsification of entries regarding the completion of the course and the improper training imparted to the petitioner. We are therefore not passing any directions regarding fresh training to be given to the petitioner because the petitioner would not at this length of time be eligible to undergo the training for A-320 Aircraft. Writ Petition No.25513 of 2016 is accordingly allowed in part and Air India is directed to refund the entire course fee taken from the petitioner within two months from today.11. Writ Appeal No.446 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 28/10/2015 made in W.P.No.33 of 2015. We do not find any infirmity with the findings of the learned Single Judge. There was no guarantee that the petitioner would be given employment by Air India. In any event, we have already directed the endorsement to be cancelled and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to a job in Air India. Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.