Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Priti Subhashrao Sawake and others, filed a writ petition challenging Rule 53(c) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950. They also sought a mandamus to quash communications dated 30th October 2021 and 15th November 2021 issued by the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, whereby the remaining waiting list for the posts of clerk was cancelled. The background of the case is that an advertisement dated 1st August 2019 was issued by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, inviting applications for the post of clerks in the pay scale of S-6: Rs. 19900 - 63200/-. The advertisement stated that a select list of 64 candidates and a wait list of another 64 candidates would be prepared, with three posts reserved for persons with disability. The petitioners were included in the wait list. Subsequently, by communications dated 30th October 2021 and 15th November 2021, the remaining waiting list was cancelled. The petitioners contended that Rule 53(c) was arbitrary and violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16, and that the cancellation of the waiting list was illegal. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the High Court of Bombay, argued that Rule 53(c) was valid and that the waiting list did not confer any vested right to appointment. The court analyzed the provisions of Rule 53(c) and held that it was not ultra vires the Constitution. The court reasoned that the rule merely provided for the cancellation of the waiting list without assigning reasons, which was a valid administrative power. The court further held that the cancellation of the waiting list was not arbitrary and was based on relevant considerations. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of Rule 53(c) and the cancellation of the waiting list.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Service Rules - Validity of Rule 53(c) - Articles 14, 16 Constitution of India, 1950 - Rule 53(c) of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 - Petitioners challenged Rule 53(c) as arbitrary and violative of equality - Court held that Rule 53(c) is not ultra vires as it provides for cancellation of waiting list without assigning reasons, which is a valid administrative power - Held that waiting list does not confer any vested right to appointment (Paras 1-18). B) Service Law - Waiting List - Cancellation - Rule 53(c) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 - Petitioners sought quashing of communications dated 30.10.2021 and 15.11.2021 cancelling remaining waiting list for clerk posts - Court held that cancellation was valid as per Rule 53(c) and not arbitrary - Held that administrative decision to cancel waiting list was based on relevant considerations and not mala fide (Paras 2-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 53(c) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and whether the cancellation of the remaining waiting list for the posts of clerk is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule 53(c) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 is held not ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The cancellation of the remaining waiting list for the posts of clerk is upheld.
Law Points
- Rule 53(c) of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules
- 2000 is valid and not ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India
- 1950
- Waiting list does not confer any vested right to appointment
- Cancellation of waiting list without assigning reasons is permissible under Rule 53(c)
- Administrative decisions to cancel waiting list are not arbitrary if based on relevant considerations
