Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard three appeals against a common judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 28.09.2018 in W.P. No. 1270 of 2018. The High Court had partly allowed the writ petition filed by Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate (respondent No.1) challenging the Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group - C (Recruitment) Rules 2016 (Rules, 2016) framed by the Governor of Maharashtra under proviso to Article 309. The High Court set aside the proviso at the end of Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) and Rule 4 of the Rules, 2016, and directed the respondents to select only those candidates who fulfilled the practical experience and driving licence requirements as per the substantive part of those rules, which were based on the Central Government's notification dated 12.06.1989 under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeals were filed by Vishal Ashok Thorat and 545 other selected candidates (Civil Appeal No. 5444/2019), the State of Maharashtra (Civil Appeal No. 5446/2019), and Abhijit Appasaheb Vasagade and 11 other selected candidates (Civil Appeal No. 5445/2019). The facts revealed that the State government had sent requisitions to the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) for recruitment to 188 posts, later increased to 858 posts (subsequently reduced to 833). MPSC issued advertisements on 30.01.2017 and 01.07.2017, conducted preliminary and main examinations, and declared a select list of 832 candidates on 31.03.2018. Respondent No.1 had earlier filed W.P. No. 7329/2017 challenging only the Rules, 2016, which was disposed of with a direction to make a representation; the representation was rejected. He then filed W.P. No. 1270/2018, initially challenging only the Rules, but later amended to challenge the advertisements and the select list. The High Court allowed the amendment and passed an interim order of status quo. Several other challenges to the Rules and advertisements before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the High Court had been dismissed, and Special Leave Petitions against those dismissals were also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that respondent No.1 had not participated in the recruitment process and had filed the amendment only after the result was declared, allegedly because his nephew was not selected. The Court held that respondent No.1 had no locus standi to challenge the recruitment, and the writ petition was barred by laches. The Court further held that the proviso to Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) did not lower the minimum qualifications but merely gave a breathing period of two years during probation to acquire the required experience and driving licence, which was not contrary to the Central Government's notification. Additionally, the Central Government's notification dated 08.03.2019 had superseded the earlier notification, removing any impediment. The Court also criticized the High Court for issuing directions affecting the select list without impleading the selected candidates, who were necessary parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed all three appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed W.P. No. 1270 of 2018.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Challenge to Recruitment Process - A person who did not participate in the recruitment process or challenge the advertisement at the appropriate time has no locus to challenge the selection after the result is declared, especially when motivated by a relative's failure. (Paras 13-14) B) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Validity of Proviso - The proviso to Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) of the Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group - C (Recruitment) Rules 2016, which grants a breathing period of two years to selected candidates to acquire the required experience and driving licence during probation, does not lower the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central Government's notification dated 12.06.1989 under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Paras 15-16) C) Service Law - Effect of Subsequent Notification - The Central Government's notification dated 08.03.2019 superseding the earlier notification dated 12.06.1989 removes any impediment to the appointment of selected candidates who fulfill the qualifications as on date. (Para 16) D) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Necessary Parties - A High Court cannot issue directions affecting the select list of candidates without impleading them as parties, as they are necessary and proper parties to the writ petition. (Para 17) E) Service Law - Laches - A writ petition challenging recruitment rules and advertisements filed after the declaration of results, without challenging the advertisements in the earlier writ petition, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and conduct. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing the writ petition challenging the Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group - C (Recruitment) Rules 2016, particularly the proviso to Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) and Rule 4, and issuing directions affecting the select list of 832 candidates without impleading them.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed all three appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 28.09.2018 in W.P. No. 1270 of 2018, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that respondent No.1 had no locus standi, the writ petition was barred by laches, the proviso to the Rules was valid, and the High Court erred in issuing directions without impleading the selected candidates.
Law Points
- Locus standi to challenge recruitment
- Laches and conduct of petitioner
- Validity of proviso to recruitment rules
- Effect of subsequent notification superseding earlier qualifications
- Power of High Court to issue directions without impleading selected candidates
