Dismissed

Sanjay Shankar Kokate v. the Union of India through Its Principal Secretary of Ministry of Education

Bombay HC21 Aug 2024PIL/42/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL challenging appointments of teaching faculty at Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya as illegal and seeking UGC-guideline-compliant appointments. The court held the appointees were necessary parties not impleaded and that PIL cannot be entertained in service matters absent quo warranto, dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sanjay Shankar Kokate vs the Union of India through… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

12-PIL-42-2024

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 42 OF 2024

¶5

Sanjay Shankar Kokate .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rahul Tiwari for petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Shimp for respondent nos.1 and 4. Mr. Vivek Khema for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. Jainendra Sheth i/by Rui Rodrigues for respondent no.5.

¶9

CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: 21^st AUGUST, 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. This Public Interest Litigation petition has been filed challenging certain appointments of teaching faculty made by the respondent nos.2 and 3 at Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya on the alleged ground that such appointments are illegal and hence are null and void. The other prayer made in the PIL petition is that a direction be issued to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to appoint teachers as per the guidelines issued by the University Grant Commission. Several other ancillary prayers have also been made.

¶14

3. At the out-set, we may point out that the persons whose appointments have been challenged, in respect of which

¶15

¶16

12-PIL-42-2024

¶17

prayer for declaring such appointments to be null and void has been made, have not been arrayed as party-respondents. Since it is their appointments which are under challenge in this PIL petition, they are the necessary parties and accordingly such persons having not been impleaded as partyrespondents, this PIL petition clearly suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶18

4. Secondly, we may also note that it is well settled principle of law that in service matters, the PIL petition cannot be entertained.

¶19

5. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the aforesaid legal position, he cites the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and refers to paragraphs 2, 4, 6, 42, and 43 to submit that every public employment has to be made in accordance with law and that equality of opportunity should be ensured in the matter of public employment. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, reported in 1981 Supp. SCC 87 .

¶20

6. In our opinion none of the aforesaid judgments improve the case of the petitioner for the reason that it has already been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363 that in service dispute, the PIL petition cannot be entertained except for a writ of quo warranto which in this PIL petition has not been prayed for.

¶21

¶22

12-PIL-42-2024

¶23

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the PIL petition is dismissed.

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2024.08.22 17:34:16 +0530

¶26

Sanjay Shankar Kokate v. the Union of India through Its Principal Secretary of Ministry of Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanjay Shankar Kokate v. the Union of India through Its Principal Secretary of Ministry of Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Prabhakar Arvind Kharat and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kailas Gajanan Somase and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Crimeophobia - a Criminology Firm through Its Founder Snehill Dhall (Petitioner in -Person) vs Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Mahadev Baburao Pednekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Public Works Department Kolhapur and Ors.

Abhijeet Kantaram Kad and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary (UD-1) Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Forsta Medtech Pvt. Ltd., vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Kailash Chand Yadav

Loni Devkar Vividha Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Thr Director vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Praveen Ramsajeevan Pandey vs Union of India through Its Cabinet Secretary

Javed Kadar Mujavar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union of India through Chief Commissioner of Customs (Appellate Authority) Mumbai ZONE-1 vs Balwant Ramashankar Singh S/O Late Shri Ramashankar R Singh