Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Tajaswini Raghunath Galande, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging two advertisements issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) for the post of Assistant Commissioner/Project Officer Grade-II. The first advertisement dated 17th March 2015 was for Group B posts, and the second dated 31st March 2015 was for Group A posts. The petitioner had earlier filed an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) which was rejected. The petitioner then filed two writ petitions. In Writ Petition No. 5396 of 2016, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition, which was allowed. In Writ Petition No. 5397 of 2016, the petitioner challenged the advertisement for the Group B post. The court noted that the selection process had already commenced and the petitioner had participated in it. The court held that there is no fundamental right to a particular mode of selection and that once the process has begun, a candidate cannot demand a re-advertisement. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and N.J. Jamadar on 23rd January 2019.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Challenge to Advertisement - Right to Re-advertisement - Petitioner challenged MPSC advertisement for Assistant Commissioner/Project Officer Grade-II after selection process had commenced - Court held that once the selection process has begun and the petitioner has participated, there is no right to demand re-advertisement - The court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the advertisement issued by MPSC for the post of Assistant Commissioner/Project Officer Grade-II after the selection process had already commenced and the petitioner had participated in it.
Final Decision
Writ Petition No. 5397 of 2016 is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Writ Petition No. 5396 of 2016 is disposed of as withdrawn.
Law Points
- No right to re-advertisement after selection process commences
- No fundamental right to particular mode of selection
- Challenge to advertisement after participation not maintainable
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 48
Writ Petition No. 5397 of 2016 with Writ Petition No. 5396 of 2016
Mr. Sagar Ghogare I/b Mr. S.J. Ghogare for petitioners; Mr. Ashish Kamath I/b Mr. Asif J. Patel and M.S.Shaikh for respondent No.1 MPSC; Mr Y. S. Khochare, AGP for respondent No.3; Mr N. V. Bandiwadekar a/w. Mr. S.A. Mane for respondent No.5 in WP/5397/2016; Mr Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar for R No.5 and 7 in WP/5396/2016; Mr S. N. Biradar for respondent No.8 in WP/5396/2016
Smt. Tajaswini Raghunath Galande
The Chairman, Maharashtra Public Service Commission; State of Maharashtra; General Administration Department; Smt. Hasinabee Laldesab Hipparaje
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging advertisement issued by MPSC for recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner/Project Officer Grade-II.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the advertisement and direct MPSC to issue a fresh advertisement.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the advertisement and the rejection of her Original Application by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal rejected O.A. No. 119 of 2016 filed by the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the advertisement after the selection process had commenced and she had participated in it.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the advertisement was flawed and sought re-advertisement. Respondents opposed, stating the selection process had already begun and the petitioner had participated.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the selection process has commenced and the candidate has participated, there is no right to demand a re-advertisement. The court found no merit in the challenge.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ('MAT') in O.A. No. 119 of 2016, vide which the learned MAT has rejected the said Original Application filed by the present petitioner.
Since the petitioner has withdrawn Writ Petition No. 5396 of 2016 regarding the post of Assistant Commissioner/Project Officer GradeII, Gr A, we are only concerned with Writ Petition No. 5397 of 2016.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed O.A. No. 119 of 2016 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which was rejected. Then filed two writ petitions before Bombay High Court. Writ Petition No. 5396 of 2016 withdrawn. Writ Petition No. 5397 of 2016 dismissed.
