A retired petitioner filed a PIL challenging his non-selection in an interview process, alleging bias. The High Court held the petition, being a personal grievance in service selection, did not involve public interest and dismissed the PIL.
Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed. No costs.
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 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:06th 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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation can be entertained regarding a personal grievance in a service selection process.
What are the limitations of Public Interest Litigation in service jurisprudence regarding personal grievances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indian Banks' Association, Bombay Vs. Devkala Consultancy ServiceReferred¶28
Indian Banks' Association, Bombay Vs. Devkala Consultancy Service reported in LAWS(SC)2004 4 132
Rajendra Ramdas Bavaskar
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurlwala
R. N. Laddha
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