VISHAL ASHOK THORAT AND ORS. versus RAJESH SHRIRAMBAPU FATE & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 628 · Decided: 19-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
VISHAL ASHOK THORAT AND ORS.
v.
RAJESH SHRIRAMBAPU FATE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5444 of 2019)
JULY 19, 2019.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C in Motor
Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 2016 – rr. 3(iii), (iv) and
4 – Post of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C –
Advertisement Nos. 2 of 2017 and 48 of 2017 inviting applications
for the posts – Selection of 832 candidates and inclusion in the
selection list – Writ petition by respondent no. 1 challenging 2016,
Rules  – Disposed of, giving liberty to make representation to the
State, which was rejected – Filing of second writ petition by
respondent no.1 challenging only 2016 Rules in which respondent
filed amendment application seeking quashing of advertisements
as well as list of selected candidates which was allowed – High
Court though held that respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to
challenge the advertisements but set aside the proviso to r. 3(iii)
and 3(iv) and r. 4 and issued directions to choose and select only
those who had participated in the selection process and fulfilled
the requirement as per the Rules – On appeal, held: When a person
is not permitted to challenge the advertisements and process of
recruitment, the select list which is outcome of such recruitment
process cannot be interfered at the instance of such person – High
Court erred in issuing direction to modify the select list –
Furthermore, the selected candidates whose names were already
published ought to have impleaded – In absence of the same, the
High Court erred in issuing direction to modify and review the select
list – By mere inclusion in the select list, there is no right of
appointment but the candidate is entitled for consideration of his
appointment, which could not have been denied without there being
any valid reason – Respondent No.1, who did not participate in the
selection and the High Court had specifically rejected the entitlement
   [2019] 9 S.C.R. 628
628
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
of the respondent No.1 to challenge the advertisement and select
list, permitting him to challenge the validity of the Rules in reference
to the same advertisements is indirectly challenging something which
could not be challenged directly by the respondent No.1 – Thus,
when the respondent no. 1 was held not entitled to challenge the
advertisement, the proceeding to entertain the challenge to the
validity of the Rules and to strike down the Rules and modifying the
select list was clearly impermissible – Thus, the High Court erred in
issuing the directions and the order passed by the High Court is set
aside.
Service Jurisprudence: Writ petition relating to condition of
service of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles – High Court
entertained the writ petition as PIL – Correctness of – Held: With
regard to service jurisprudence, PIL are not entertained – Writ
petition filed by respondent No.1 was not styled or framed as PIL –
High Court being influenced by the submission that loss being
caused to the public revenue by appointment of Assistant Inspector
of Motor Vehicles, who did not fulfill qualification as laid down in
notification, virtually entertained the writ petition as PIL – High
Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court permitted the respondent No.1
to challenge the advertisement Nos.2 of 2017 and 48 of 2017 and
the entire recruitment process undertaken thereunder.
Respondent No.1 was also permitted to challenge the select list
dated 31.03.2018. Respondent No.1 in his writ petition sought to
challenge advertisements only on 13.04.2018 whereas
advertisement for preliminary examination was first issued on
30.01.2017. Admittedly, respondent No.1 never applied against
the advertisement to participate in the recruitment for the post
of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles. The High Court
although has permitted respondent No.1 to amend the prayer in
the writ petition by including challenge to the advertisements as
well as challenge to the select list but in the impugned judgment
the High Court has categorically held that respondent No.1 cannot
be allowed to challenge the advertisements dated 30.01.2017 and
VISHAL ASHOK THORAT v. RAJESH SHRIRAMBAPU FATE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
01.07.2017. The High Court in paragraph 48 of its judgment has
clearly held that writ pet

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.