Bombay High Court
Tilak Gopinath Bhos And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 March, 2022
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige
1 923-PIL 108-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 108 OF 2021
Shri Tilak Gopinath Bhos,
and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Aniruddha A. Nimbalkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondents-State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATED : 11th MARCH 2022.
PER COURT:-
. The petitioners are challenging the report/opinion submitted by
the State Examiner of Documents, C.I.D., Maharashtra State, Mumbai
along with its covering letter. So also seek directions to set aside the
report submitted by the enquiry squad.
2. Mr. Nimbalkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
this Court under judgment and order dated 05.04.2019 in Writ Petition
No. 8811 of 2018 had partly set aside the decision of the Divisional
Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Region, Nashik
cancelling the select list viz. recruitment conducted for employing the
employees in respondent No. 4 - Bank. This Court under the said
1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2022 04:05:44 :::
2 923-PIL 108-2021.odt
order directed enquiry to be conducted. Pursuant to the same, enquiry
was conducted and the report is submitted. The learned counsel
further submits that the said enquiry report suffers from large scale
illegalities. The said enquiry is conducted in slipshod manner without
adhering to the basic principles. The illegalities are perpetuated
instead of rectifying. The present public interest litigation is filed to
bring on record the illegalities in the enquiry report. The enquiry is
conducted in a manner to secure the appointments of candidates,
whose selections were earlier cancelled and protect the concerned
officers.
3. It was wrong on the part of respondent No. 2 to have suggested
the names of the agencies to respondent No. 3. The same appears to
have been suggested as per the will of the respondent-authorities. The
investigation is not conducted by the respondents with the aid of
Forensic Scientific Laboratory. The enquiry squad ought to have taken
assistance of Forensic Scientific Laboratory for conducting
investigation. The same is not done. The handwriting related
investigation is conducted by the Crime Investigation Department.
There are further large scale illegalities, which requires consideration
by this Court. Only because this Court had framed time stipulation that
does not give liberty to the respondents to do away with basic
2 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2022 04:05:44 :::
3 923-PIL 108-2021.odt
investigation.
4. The learned counsel submits that earlier four member committee
had come to the conclusion that carbon copies of answer-sheets had
been tampered with, however carbon copies of the answer-sheets are
examined by Mr. Aher. In view of the large scale illegalities committed,
this Court can interfere. The irregularities and illegalities are in public
employment and this Court can certainly entertain the public interest
litigation. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Jharkhand
High Court in a case of Budh Deo Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
reported in 2012 SCC online Jhar 652.
5. The learned A.G.P. submits that the public interest litigation
would not be tenable in service matters. There is a criminal case filed
against the petitioner. The same also requires to be considered. The
public interest litigation is not bonafide one. The same cannot be
entertained. Reliance is placed by the learned A.G.P. on the judgment
of the Apex Court in a case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. dated 14.12.2004 in Special Leave Petition No.
26269 of 2004 and the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Hari
Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors. dated 30.08.2010 in Civil
Appeal No. 7165 of 2010.
3 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2022 04:05:44 :::
4 923-PIL 108-2021.odt
6. The recruitment process for selecting the employees of various
posts was undertaken by the respondent No. 4. After the selection
process was over the same was cancelled on the ground that large scale
illegalities have been committed. The order of cancelling the selection
process is assailed before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8811 of
2018 and other connected writ petitions. The writ petition was filed by
the respondent No. 4 and other selected candidates. This Court
considered the petition on merits and pass the following order.
ORDER
"(i) Writ Petition No. 8811/2018 is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned decision dated 28.02.2018, canceling the
select lists is hereby partly set aside.
(iii) The cancellation of select lists to the extent of 36
candidates selected for the post of Junior Officers,
mentioned at Page No. 289 of the enquiry report - Part I
- whose names find place in the select list appearing at
Pages 363 to 375 of the enquiry report (Paper Book
Pages 391 to 421 of Writ Petition No. 8811/2018); and
28 candidates selected for the post of Clerk (Page 443 of
the enquiry report Volume II (Pages 431 to 456 of Paper
Book of Writ Petition No. 8811/2018) is upheld.
The respondent No. 3 shall, however, again
scrutinize the entire record of these candidates and take
a final decision about their selection within a period of
six months from today.
(iv) The decision of cancellation of selection of other
candidates named in the select lists is, thus, set aside.
4 of 7
5 923-PIL 108-2021.odt
(v) In view of the above order, Writ Petitions No.
2666/2018, 2671/2018, 2689/2018, 2690/2018,
2691/2018 and 2695/2018 and the pending Civil
Applications therein are disposed of.
Rule made partly absolute in above terms."
7. Under the said judgment, the cancellation of select list to the
extent of 36 candidates selected for the post of Junior Officers,
mentioned at page No. 289 of the enquiry report - Part I was upheld. It
was further directed that the respondent No. 3 therein shall again
scrutinize the entire record of these candidates and take a final decision
about their selection within a period of six (06) months and the
cancellation of their selection was set aside.
8. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the enquiry committee was
constituted. The enquiry was conducted and fresh decision was taken.
Thereafter appointments of some of the candidates were upheld and
selection of some of the candidates is cancelled. It is the said enquiry
report under challenge.
9. This Court would not sit in an appeal over the enquiry report.
This Court would be concerned with the decision making process,
rather than the decision itself.
10. The enquiry has been conducted by the committee. The said
5 of 7
6 923-PIL 108-2021.odt
enquiry report, it appears, is accepted by the authority and thereafter
the appointments are issued to those persons whom the enquiry
committee found to be eligible.
11. It is not the case of the petitioners that those persons selected
and appointed do not possess basic qualification or experience as per
the advertisement. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be
about disparity in the answer sheets, relations of the selected
candidates with the Director and other aspects. The enquiry committee
has gone through the same. It would be inappropriate to exercise the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit in an
appeal over the said enquiry report and reconsider the entire enquiry
report as an appellate authority.
12. On the aforesaid premise, we are not inclined to entertain the
present public interest litigation.
13. As we are not inclined to entertain the public interest litigation
for the aforesaid reasons, we have not entered into rigmarole as to the
maintainability of the public interest litigation.
14. In the light of the above, public interest litigation is disposed of.
No costs.
6 of 7
7 923-PIL 108-2021.odt
15. We have not entertained the public interest litigation on merits.
In view of the above, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only)
deposited by the petitioners is allowed to be withdrawn by the
petitioners.
( S. G. DIGE ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
7 of 7
