The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a PIL challenging the appointment of an employee. The court held that PIL is not maintainable to challenge selection and appointment, citing Supreme Court precedents.
The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of.
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.
( 1 ) pil6.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.6 OF 2018
Chhaya w/o. Shyam Adsure
..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Respondents
Mr.P.P. More, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for respondent/State.
Mr.N.R. Bhavar, Advocate for R-3.
Miss P.S. Talekar h/f. Talekar & Associates for R-4.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :16.01.2018
P.C. :-
1.Heard. The dispute in respect of appointment of
respondent No.4 has been raised. In view of settled
position of law, Public Interest Litigation for taking
exception to the selection and appointment of an employee
is not maintainable, as held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707 and Hari Bansh Lal Vs.
Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors., 2010 AIR (SC) 3515.
2.In that view of the matter, we are not inclined
to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. Hence, the
Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of.
3.Needless to observe that if aggrieved person has
remedy to approach the appropriate forum, dismissal of
this Public Interest Litigation shall not be construed as
an impediment to avail such remedy as available in law.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.][S.S.SHINDE,J.]
snk/2018/SEP18/ pil6.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation for taking exception to the selection and appointment of an employee is maintainable?
Whether the High Court can entertain this petition in public interest litigation regarding appointment of respondent number 4?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.Referred¶13
Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707 · Who else cites this
Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.Referred¶13
Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors., 2010 AIR (SC) 3515 · Who else cites this
Chhaya w/o. Shyam Adsure
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. Shinde
S.M. Gavhane
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