Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Registrar Appointment Due to Lack of Locus Standi. Petitioner, a Senate Member and Associate Professor, Failed to Apply for the Post and Thus Cannot Challenge the Selection Process Under Article 226.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, Dr. Harsh Kashinathrao Gaikwad, an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry at a college affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He challenged the appointment order dated 23 March 2026 issued by the University in favor of Respondent No.6, Dr. Manohar Kacharu Sanap, appointing him as Registrar. The Petitioner also sought a direction to the University to appoint a suitable candidate from a list published on 15 May 2024, excluding Respondent No.6. The Petitioner claimed to be a member of the Senate of the University under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The Court examined the issue of locus standi, noting that the Petitioner had not applied for the post of Registrar. The Court held that a person who does not participate in the recruitment process cannot challenge the selection, as it would lead to endless litigation. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Judicial Review of Appointments - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The Petitioner, a Senate member and Associate Professor, challenged the appointment of Respondent No.6 as Registrar. The Court held that the Petitioner, not being an applicant for the post, lacked locus standi to challenge the selection process. The Court emphasized that a person who does not participate in the recruitment process cannot later challenge it, as it would open floodgates of litigation. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Petitioner, who did not apply for the post of Registrar, has locus standi to challenge the appointment of Respondent No.6 as Registrar of Savitribai Phule Pune University.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Locus standi
  • Judicial review of appointments
  • Article 226
  • Maharashtra Public Universities Act
  • 2016
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 3

Writ Petition (ST) No. 12972 of 2026

2026-05-06

Ravindra V. Ghuge, Hiten S. Venegavkar

Mr. Sumedh S. Modak a/w Mr. Ashwin Hirulkar for the Petitioner, Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent No.1, Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Akshay Kulkarni for Respondent No.4 and 5, Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Akshay S. Karlekar for Respondent No.6

Dr. Harsh Kashinathrao Gaikwad

The State of Maharashtra, Savitribai Phule Pune University, The Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Modern Education Society, Ness Wadia College of Commerce, Dr. Manohar Kacharu Sanap

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging appointment of Registrar.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of appointment order dated 23 March 2026 and direction to appoint from list dated 15 May 2024 excluding Respondent No.6.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claims appointment of Respondent No.6 as Registrar is illegal.

Issues

Whether the Petitioner has locus standi to challenge the appointment of Respondent No.6 as Registrar when he did not apply for the post.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he is a Senate member and has interest in proper functioning of University. Respondents argued that Petitioner lacks locus standi as he did not apply for the post.

Ratio Decidendi

A person who does not participate in the recruitment process for a post cannot challenge the selection or appointment of another candidate, as they lack locus standi under Article 226.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing and setting aside of the appointment order dated 23rd March, 2026 issued by Savitribai Phule Pune University in favour of Respondent No.6, Dr.Manohar Kachuru Sanap, appointing him to the post of Registrar of the University.

Procedural History

The petition was filed on an unknown date, reserved on 30 April 2026, and pronounced on 6 May 2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016: Section 28
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes MPDA Detention Order Against Sand Smuggler Due to Non-Application of Mind. Preventive detention set aside as detaining authority failed to consider custody and lack of public order impact.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Compassionate Appointment for Disabled Son of Former Bank Employee. Voluntary Retirement on Medical Grounds Does Not Create Entitlement to Compassionate Appointment Under Canara Bank Pension Regulations.