Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Process for Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors: Vishal Ashok Thorat vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 19 July 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 714

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can a High Court modify a select list of candidates for government jobs when it has already held that the challenge to the original advertisement is not permissible? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in Maharashtra. The court had to determine whether the High Court was correct in setting aside certain rules and modifying the select list, even after holding that the petitioner could not challenge the original advertisement. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The case revolves around the recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the Transport Department of the State of Maharashtra. The State Government, through a notification dated 23.12.2016, framed the “Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C in Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules 2016”. Following this, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) was tasked with conducting examinations for these posts.

Initially, the MPSC issued an advertisement on 30.01.2017 for 188 posts, which was later increased to 833 posts. A preliminary examination was held on 30.04.2017, and a main examination on 06.08.2017. The results were declared on 31.03.2018, and a select list of 832 candidates was published. The respondent, Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate, filed a writ petition challenging the 2016 Rules, which was later amended to include a challenge to the advertisements and the select list.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate, initially filed Writ Petition No.7329 of 2017 challenging the 2016 Rules, which was disposed of by the High Court on 13.11.2017, granting him liberty to make a representation to the State Government. The State Government rejected his representation on 01.02.2018. Subsequently, the respondent filed another Writ Petition No.1270 of 2018, again challenging the 2016 Rules. This petition was amended to include a challenge to the advertisements and the select list after the results were declared on 31.03.2018.

Several other challenges were also filed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, all pertaining to the 2016 Rules and the advertisements. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed these challenges on 06.12.2017. The High Court also dismissed related writ petitions on 17.01.2018 and 18.01.2018. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed against these High Court orders on 09.02.2018 and 04.05.2018.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the following key legal provisions:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Governor of a State to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State.
• Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section empowers the Central Government to prescribe the minimum qualifications for officers appointed under the Act.
  The exact text is:
  
  “The Central Government may, having regard to the objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such.”

The State of Maharashtra framed the “Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C in Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules 2016” under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. These rules were framed in supersession of all existing rules. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, issued a notification on 12.06.1989, prescribing the minimum qualifications for the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles or Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles.

Arguments

The appellants, including the selected candidates and the State of Maharashtra, argued that:

• The respondent, Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate, had no locus standi to challenge the recruitment process as he did not participate in it.
• The High Court erred in allowing the amendment to the writ petition to include a challenge to the advertisements and the select list, especially after the respondent had not challenged them in his earlier writ petition.
• The proviso to Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) of the 2016 Rules, which allowed candidates to acquire the required experience and driving license during the probation period, did not dilute the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central Government but merely provided a “breathing time” for candidates to fulfill these requirements.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the select list, especially since the selected candidates were not made parties to the writ petition.
• The subsequent notification dated 08.03.2019 by the Central Government superseded the earlier notification dated 12.06.1989, which was the basis for the High Court’s decision.
• The State Government has the legislative competence to make rules regarding State Public Services under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
• The High Court treated the matter as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which is not permissible in service matters.

The respondent, Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate, argued that:

• He was qualified for the post and had the right to challenge the 2016 Rules.
• The 2016 Rules diluted the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central Government’s notification dated 12.06.1989.
• The State cannot appoint a person who does not fulfill the minimum qualifications, even on probation.
• The High Court was correct in setting aside the problematic rules.
• The notification dated 08.03.2019 was not applicable as the recruitment process was completed under the earlier notification.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the appellants’ contention that the proviso to Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) did not dilute the qualifications but provided a reasonable time for candidates to acquire the necessary experience and licenses. Additionally, the argument that the subsequent notification by the Central Government rendered the High Court’s decision obsolete was also novel.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the primary issues that the court addressed can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the select list of candidates when it had held that the writ petitioner could not challenge the advertisements.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the proviso to Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) and also Rule 4 of the Rules, 2016.
3. Whether the High Court could have modified the select list without the selected candidates being impleaded in the writ petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the issue of necessary parties:

• Udit Narain Singh, Malpatharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786: This Constitution Bench judgment laid down the principle that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively, and a party whose interests are directly affected is a necessary party in a writ petition.
  
  “A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.”
  
  “A party whose interests are directly affected is, therefore, a necessary party.”
  
  Supreme Court of India
• Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht and others, (2010) 12 SCC 204: This case reiterated that a writ petition could not be entertained against a selected candidate who was not a party to the writ petition.
  
  Supreme Court of India

On the issue of non-impleadment of parties:

• A. Janardhana vs. Union of India and others, (1983) 3 SCC 601: This case was cited by the respondent to argue that non-impleadment of affected parties is not always fatal, especially when the challenge is to a policy decision. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
  
  Supreme Court of India

On the issue of PIL in service matters:

• Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465: This case reiterated that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) should not be entertained in service matters.
  
  Supreme Court of India

Legal Provisions:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Governor of a State to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Empowers the Central Government to prescribe the minimum qualifications for officers appointed under the Act.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Udit Narain Singh, Malpatharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize that a party whose rights are directly affected is a necessary party, and the High Court could not have issued orders affecting the selected candidates without them being impleaded.
• Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht and others, (2010) 12 SCC 204:* The Court cited this case to support the view that a writ petition could not have been entertained against the selected candidate when he has not been a party in the writ petition.
• A. Janardhana vs. Union of India and others, (1983) 3 SCC 601:* The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the present case was about recruitment and selection, not seniority.
• Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465:* The Court cited this case to reiterate that PILs should not be entertained in service matters.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s judgment. The Court emphasized that the High Court had contradicted itself by disallowing the challenge to the advertisements while simultaneously interfering with the select list based on those advertisements. The Court also highlighted the importance of impleading necessary parties, particularly those whose interests are directly affected by the court’s order. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the High Court treated the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which is not permissible in service matters.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on procedural aspects and the need to adhere to established legal principles, rather than delving into the substantive merits of the rules themselves. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the High Court did not overstep its jurisdiction and that the principles of natural justice were upheld.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

Fact:Law Ratio

The ratio of fact to law indicates that the court’s decision was primarily driven by legal principles and procedural correctness (70%) rather than the specific factual circumstances of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the select list of candidates when it had held that the writ petitioner could not challenge the advertisements.

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the proviso to Rule 3(iii) and Rule 3(iv) and also Rule 4 of the Rules, 2016.

Issue 3: Whether the High Court could have modified the select list without the selected candidates being impleaded in the writ petition.

Key Takeaways

• A High Court cannot interfere with a select list of candidates if it has already held that the petitioner cannot challenge the advertisement based on which the selection process was conducted.
• Selected candidates are necessary parties in any writ petition that seeks to modify or set aside a select list. Their non-impleadment can be fatal to the case.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) should not be entertained in service matters.
• Courts should avoid self-contradictory rulings.
• Procedural correctness is paramount in judicial decision-making.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 28.09.2018 and dismissed the Writ Petition No.1270 of 2018. The court directed that the parties shall bear their own costs.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot interfere with a select list of candidates when it has already held that the petitioner cannot challenge the advertisement based on which the selection process was conducted. The judgment reinforces the principle that selected candidates are necessary parties in any writ petition that seeks to modify or set aside a select list. It also reiterates that PILs should not be entertained in service matters. This judgment does not bring about any change in the previous positions of law but rather reinforces the established legal principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the select list and setting aside certain rules, especially when the writ petitioner was not allowed to challenge the advertisements. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural correctness and the need to implead necessary parties in such cases. The judgment reinforces the established principles of service law and judicial review.