1 pil 70.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

1010 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.70 OF 2021

RAJENDRA RAMDAS BAVASKAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioner:

Mr. Ghatol Patil Shahaji B.

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. A. R. Kale

...

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE: 06^th AUGUST, 2021

PER COURT:

1.

We have heard Mr. Ghatol Patil, learned

Advocate for the petitioner. On the last date also

we had heard the learned Advocate for the

petitioner.

2.

The petitioner is challenging the employment

of respondent no. 8. The petitioner is seeking

further directions to restrain respondent no. 8

from working as Director (Operational).

3.

The petitioner is retired from service. Today

he is in no way concerned with respondents no. 3

to 7.

2 pil 70.2021

4.

It is the contention of the petitioner that

the authorities of the respondent called

favourable persons only and prepared the list of

shortlisted candidates for interview as per their

will and wish. The grievance of the petitioner

appears to be that as he was not shortlisted and

called for the interview the present Public

Interest Litigation is filed. The petitioner is

challenging the selection process.

5.

Perusal of the contention of Public Interest

Litigation, we do not find any public interest

involved in the present matter.

6.

In service jurisprudence, the selection

process by way of Public Interest Litigation may

not be entertained.

7.

The learned Advocate relies on the judgment

of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Indian Banks’

Association, Bombay Vs. Devkala Consultancy

Service reported in LAWS(SC)2004 4 132 and submits

that if the writ petition is held not to be

3 pil 70.2021

entertained on the ground of locus, the Court in

larger public interest had entertained the writ

petition and even if the petitioner moves the

Court in private interest, the Court in

furtherance of public interest may treat it a

necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of

the subject of litigation in the interest of

justice.

8.

We find that it is the question of selection

process which is made the subject matter of

present Public Interest Litigation and the

petitioner’s grievance appears to be too personal

to be treated as a Public Interest Litigation.

9.

Our observations are limited to the extent

of present Public Interest Litigation.

10. Public Interest Litigation as such stands

dismissed. No costs.

[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

marathe