Bombay High Court Orders Status Quo On Police Constable Selection, Asks Tribunal To Hear Merit List Dispute Expeditiously

Ordering a status quo in the matter, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep v. Marne said since the reference has already made to larger Bench and since both the sets of parties are already before the Tribunal, ends of justice would meet if the larger Bench of the Tribunal is permitted to decide the controversy before it.

“However since much water has flown by now, it would not be appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and to relegate the matter back to the Tribunal for following the correct procedure for making reference as mandated in K. Ajit Babu," said the court.

The petitioners were candidates in the recruitment for Police Constable (Driver), 2019. Their names were included in the merit list but they were subsequently deleted from the revised merit list because they participated in the selection process of more than one district. The petitioners, among others, challenged the revised merit list and the tribunal by common order in April 2022 set aside deletion of their names from the merit list.

When the state government implemented the tribunal’s judgement, the names of some of the candidates in the revised merit list got deleted and they were terminated from service. Those candidates approached the tribunal in a second set of Original Applications.

The tribunal noticed that the implementation of its judgement in the first set of applications resulted in termination of service of the second set of applicants. Therefore, it last month recalled its earlier judgement and restored the first set of original applications. The tribunal then referred both sets of original applications to a larger bench of three members. The petitioners (first set of applicants) challenged this before the High Court.

The court noted that when the first set of original applications was filed, the merit lists had been already declared and the names of selected candidates were known. Therefore, while challenging the merit list, the first set of applicants should have impleaded at least some of the selected candidates in a representative capacity, it added. 

"We feel that the course of action adopted by the Tribunal in entertaining OA Nos, 144 of 2022 & Ors without impleadment of affected selected candidates was against the well settled principles enunciated in various judgments of the Apex Court," said the bench.

The court noted that the tribunal had already allowed the first set of applications and allowing the second set of applications would have resulted in conflicting judgements regarding the same selection process.

The tribunal should have decided the second set of applications by directing impleadment of all applicants of the first set, the court said.

"If after hearing all the parties, the Tribunal was to arrive at a conclusion that the view taken by it in its earlier order dated 11th April 2022 was correct, OA Nos.775 of 2022 & ors could be dismissed. On the other hand, if the Tribunal was to disagree with the view taken in its order dated 11th April 2022, OA Nos.775 of 2022 & ors would then be referred to larger Bench of three learned Members. This is the mandate of judgments in K. Ajit Babu and Gopabandhu Biswal," said the bench.

The court further said the Tribunal adopted procedure "unknown to law" by recalling its order in the first set of applications while hearing the second set, the court said. It is "incomprehensible" how the tribunal passed any order in the first set of applications while hearing altogether different applications, it added.

"To make things worse, the order of recall was passed behind the back of Applicants of OA Nos. 144/2022 & Ors," said the bench.

While refusing to interfere with the tribunal's decision to refer the matter to a larger bench, the court made it clear that its decision is not a precedent.

"However, it is made clear that our decision is in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the same shall not be construed to mean that the course of action adopted by the Tribunal in recalling the Judgment and Order dated 11th April, 2022 is approved by us in any manner. Nor this judgment shall be treated as a precedent."

The court also said the decision of the larger Bench would prevail over all past decisions rendered by the Division Benches of the Tribunal at various Benches.

"We are informed that the larger Bench of the Tribunal has commenced the hearing of both set of the Original Applications on 5th January, 2023. Since the larger Bench is already seized of the Original Applications, it would be in the fitness of the things if status with regard to the appointments of the petitioners is maintained till the larger Bench of the Tribunal finally takes decision in the Original Applications," it added.

The court said till the matter is decided by the larger Bench, status quo be maintained. It also requested the larger bench to hear the matter expeditiously considering the issues involved.

Advocates Sandeep Dere and L.S. Deshmukh represented the petitioners. Advocates Pranav Avhad and Purna S. Pradhan represented the second set of applicants.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 224 of 2023

Case Title – Nitin Pandurang Shejwal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 17

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment