The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad rejected a PIL filed by an agriculturist seeking initiation of action against a state employee for availing reservation benefits. The court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters against individuals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil 45.14.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.45 OF 2014
Gajanan s/o. Namdev Solanke
Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.
Respondent/s
Mr. A.D. Shinde, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, GP for the Respondents
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2014.
PER COURT:
1]The petitioner is seeking initiation of
action against the respondent/State employee, for
taking benefits of reservation in securing and
continuing in employment. The petitioner claims to be
an agriculturist and a public spirited person. It has
been held by the Honourable Apex court in a catena of
judgments that the PIL is not maintainable in service
matters, much less, against an individual employee.
Reliance can be placed on judgment of the Apex Court
in the matter of "Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad
Mahato”reported in (2010)9 SCC 655.
2]In this view of the matter, petition does
not deserve consideration and the same is rejected.
[A.M. BADAR][R.M. BORDE]
JUDGE JUDGE.
grt/-
1 issue framed by the court
whether a PIL concerning reservation benefits for an individual service employee is maintainable
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad MahatoReferred¶1
(2010)9 SCC 655 · Who else cites this
Gajanan s/o. Namdev Solanke
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court