Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 756

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Vishal Ashok Thorat and ors. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & ors. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5444 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.31957 OF 2018)
WITH
State of Maharashtra – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and ors. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5446 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.2658 OF 2019)
WITH
Abhijit Appasahab Vasagade & ors. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and others. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5445 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.31580 OF 2018)
Decided On : 19-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s) (SLP(C) 31957/18):Dr. Abhishek Manu Singvi, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Mr. Sagar N. Pahune-Patil, Advocates
SLP(C) 31580/18 :Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Ms. Harshikha Verma, Mr. Dhruv Sheoran, Advocates
SLP(C) 2658/19 :Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, Mr. Abhishek Krishna, Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Mr. Samrat Shinde, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Mr. R.L. Khapre, Mr. Rishi Jain, Advocates
SLP(C) 31957/18 :Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Mr. Vasim Siddiqui, Advocates.
For Caveator :Mr. Vishaal Jogdang, Mr. Debasis Misra, Advocates
For impleading applicant :Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Mr. K. Subbarao, Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, Ms. Rekha Chandra Sekhar, Mr. Rahul G. Tarwani, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
No order can be passed adversely affecting interest of the party who has not been impleaded.
When a candidate is held not entitled to challenge the advertisement for recruitment, he cannot be allowed to challenge the Rules under which the selection process was undertaken.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service law - Recruitment - High Court rejecting challenge to the advertisement - Yet interfering with select list prepared on basis of selection process in pursuance of the advertisement at the instance of the petitioner - Held not permissible. (Para 32)
       (b) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - No selected candidate impleaded by respondent No.1-writ petitioner - Yet High Court issuing direction to modify and review the select list - Not permissible. (Para 33, 37)
       (c) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - Respondent 1 not participating in selection process - High Court rejecting his challenge to advertisements - But allowing his challenge to the Rules under which advertisements were issued - Held not permissible. (Para 38, 39, 40)
       Facts of the case:
       MPSC invited applications from eligible candidates for 833 posts of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C. Relevant examination was conducted on 30.04.2017 in which more than 69,000 candidates participated.
       On 30.06.2017, result of preliminary exam was declared in which 9,870 candidates were declared qualified for the Mains examination which was conducted on 06.08.2017.
       The MPSC declared the final result of examination publishing a select list of 832 candidates recommending them for appointment.
       The respondent No.1 filed a second Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2018 challenging only Rules, 2016 and praying for quashing of the advertisements dated 30.01.2017 and 01.07.2017 as well as list of selected candidates through an amendment petition which was allowed by the High Court on 13.04.2018. The High Court on 12.06.2018 had passed an interim order for maintaining status quo.
       Another Writ Petition was partly allowed. The High Court although held that writ petitioner, i.e., respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to challenge the advertisements dated 30.01.2017 and 01.07.2017 but the High Court set aside the Proviso at the end of Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) and also Rule 4 of Rules, 2016. The High Court ultimately directed the respondent to choose and select only those persons, who had participated in the selection process and who fulfilled the requirement of practical experiences and driving licences as per the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government, i.e., as per substantive part of Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) of Rules, 2016.
       Finding of the Court:
       Directions issued by the High Court in paragraph No.51 are not sustainable.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

1. All these appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 28.09.2018 of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in W.P.No. 1270 of 2018 filed by Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate, respondent no.1 in these appeals by which judgment the High Court has partly allowed the writ petition of respondent no.1.

2. We may first notice the facts and events leading to filing of these appeals.

3. In transport Department of the State of Maharashtra there were posts of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C. Under proviso to Article 309, Governor of Maharashtra by notification dated 23.12.2016 framed the Rules namely “Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C in Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules 2016” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2016”).

4. The State government sent a requisition on 29.12.2016 to Maharashtra Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as MPSC) for conducting examinations. MPSC issued advertisement no. 2 of 2017 dated 30.01.2017 inviting online applications for 188 posts of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector Group-C for which Preliminary Examination was to take place on 30.04.2017 and Main Examination of eligible candidate was likely to be held on 06.08.2017. The State government had sent further requisition for additional 670 posts. MPSC issued a declaration notifying 858 posts which subsequently reduced to 833 posts. Relevant examination was conducted on 30.04.2017 in which more than 69,000 candidates participated.

5. On 30.06.2017, result of preliminary exam was declared in which 9,870 candidates were declared qualified for the Mains examination. On 01.07.2017, MPSC issued advertisement no.48 of 2017 for Main examination which was conducted on 06.08.2017. Writ Petition No.7329 of 2017 was filed by respondent No.1 challenging only the Rules, 2016 which petition was disposed of by the High Court on 13.11.2017 granting leave to writ petitioner to make appropriate representation to the State Government. The State Government was directed to take suitable decision in the next two months. The State Government vide order dated 01.02.2018 rejected the representation of respondent No.1. The MPSC declared the final result of examination publishing a select list of 832 candidates on 31.03.2018. On 07.05.2018, MPSC recommended 832 candidates to the State Government for appointment State Government on 15.05.2018 directed Transport Commissioner to take further steps for 832 selected candidates. On 05.06.2018, Transport Commissioner asked selected candidates to come for verification of documents.

6. The respondent No.1 filed a second Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2018 challenging only Rules, 2016 in which writ petition, petitioner filed an amendment application praying for quashing of the advertisements dated 30.01.2017 and 01.07.2017 as well as list of selected candidates which amendment application was allowed by the High Court on 13.04.2018. The High Court on 12.06.2018 had passed an interim order for maintaining status quo.

7. Apart from writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 challenging the Rules and subsequently the advertisement, there had been several challenges before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court pertaining to 2016 Rules and the Advertisement no. 2 of 2017 and 48 of 2017.

8. Before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Rules, 2016 were challenged by Manoj Chavahan by filing O.A. No.615 of 2017, which was dismissed on 06.12.2017 repelling the challenge to the Rules. Several other O.As. filed before Maharashtra State Administrative Tribunal were also dismissed on 06.12.2017. One O.A. No. 481 of 2018 filed by Ajitpalsingh Nirmalsingh Khalsa was also dismissed on 06.12.2017 against which Writ Petition No.8179 of 2017 filed by Ajitpalsingh Nirmalsingh Khalsa which was also dismissed by the High Court on 18.01.2018 and SLP No. 3452 of 2018 challenging the judgment dated 18.01.2018 of the High Court was dismissed by this Court on 09.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 756

IMPORTANT POINTSNo order can be passed adversely affecting interest of the party who has not been impleaded.When a candidate is held not entitled to challenge the advertisement for recruitment, he cannot be allowed to challenge the Rules under which the selection process was undertaken.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
No order can be passed adversely affecting interest of the party who has not been impleaded.
When a candidate is held not entitled to challenge the advertisement for recruitment, he cannot be allowed to challenge the Rules under which the selection process was undertaken.