Bombay High Court
Jitendriya Anantrao Sawleshwarkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 5 February, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
413.24wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
13 WRIT PETITION NO. 413 OF 2024
JITENDRIYA ANANTRAO SAWLESHWARKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
....
Mr S. T. Veer, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr P. K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mrs Dipali S. Jape, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.7
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 5th February, 2024
PER COURT:
1. The Petitioner, who is the Member of the District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at District Hingoli,
would be completing his five years term on 09/02/2024, as per the
earlier 2011 Rules, namely, Maharashtra Whole-time President
and Members of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Group-A
under the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department of the Government (Recruitment) Rules, 2011. He
seeks a Writ of Mandamus to continue him on the said post
beyond the end of his tenure, until a decision is taken in the
proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He prays that he
413.24wp
should be continued in employment under a Writ of Mandamus of
this Court, since he claims to have an enforceable right for
reappointment as a Member of the said District Forum for the
second term of five years.
2. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on
27/02/2024. The learned A.G.P. waives service of notice on
behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel
waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.7.
3. As regards the submissions of the Petitioner for
interim relief, that this Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus
and continue the Petitioner beyond the end of his tenure on
09/02/2024, it is an undisputed position that, a new candidate,
Respondent No.6 herein Shri. Vishnu Rambhau Dhabde, has been
selected to take charge as a Member of the said District Forum.
4. The first Respondent has issued an order on
06/10/2023, recording therein that the Committee under the
Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Shri. Justice K. R. Shriram was
constituted and a meeting on 01/08/2023 was held for considering
the candidature of persons, who had applied for reappointment
and even those who had not made such application, but had
413.24wp
tendered the Writ Petitions. A reference is made to the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 03/03/2023, the written test
given by the candidates for being considered for reappointment,
and a final select list was published on 15/09/2023. It is further
mentioned that 33 candidates, who had applied, and 3 candidates,
who had not applied, but had tendered the Writ Petitions, were
considered in the process for selection, and out of which, 10
candidates have been selected and 26 candidates have been
declared to be not worthy of being appointed. It is admitted
position that the Petitioner had applied and participated in the
process for being considered for the position of the 'President' of
the District Forum, as well as for the position of the 'Member' of
the District Forum (second term). It is further admitted that,
according to the results declared, the Petitioner has not been
selected.
5. The Petitioner has referred to a judgment delivered by
this Court on 18/02/2019 in Writ Petition No.4974/2018 (Mukund
Bhagwan Saste Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), wherein this
Court concluded in paragraph Nos.10, 12, 13 and 14, as under :-
"10. While making recommendation by the Selection
Committee for re-appointment of a Member, the Selection
413.24wp
Committee has to consider that the candidate who is
seeking re-appointment has already undergone the selection
process and it is not necessary for the said candidate to
undergo the same process of selection. The Selection
Committee is certainly required to consider the confidential
reports, the disposal of cases, the performance during the
time of the first appointment, general reputation of the
candidate and the complaints, if any, pending against the
candidate. It is not required to consider the marks obtained
by the petitioner in vivo-voce at the time of selection while
considering reappointment. Of course, the Selection
Committee can consider the performance during the time of
the first appointment, general reputation of the candidate
and the complaints, so also the confidential reports and the
disposal of cases.
12. The Selection Committee has not in its order/
recommendation clarified about the assessment of the
Judgments of the petitioner, complaints, if any, the
confidential reports, the general reputation of the petitioner.
In fact, these were the criterias, which were required to be
considered by the Selection Committee.
13. In light of the above, the impugned order not
recommending the petitioner for re-appointment to the post
as Non Judicial Member of the District Consumer
Redressal Forum, Osmanabad is set aside. The respondent
shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for re-
appointment in tune with the criteria as provided in Rule 34
of Rules 2011. The same shall be done expeditiously,
preferably within a period of three months.
14. We have considered the case of the petitioner only to
the extent of his non recommendation for re-appointment."
413.24wp
6. It is obvious from the judgment delivered in Mukund
Bhagwan Saste (supra) that, this Court considered the pleadings
of the parties and the record available, and then delivered a final
judgment in the matter, concluding that the Petitioner can be
considered for reappointment. This Court did not issue a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the selection of the Petitioner.
7. In the judgment dated 08/06/2015, delivered by this
Court at the Principal Seat, in Writ Petition No.11716/2012 and
connected Writ Petitions, it was concluded in paragraph No.43
that the President of the District Forum is entitled to seek
reappointment for another term. If selected, he would be entitled
for a maximum of two terms in the office of the President and he
need not undergo a fresh selection process for being considered
for reappointment.
8. As is held in Mukund Bhagwan Saste (supra), the
Committee is entitled to consider the Confidential Report, the
disposal of cases, the performance of the candidate during his first
tenure, the general reputation of the candidate and complaints, if
any, to decide, as to whether he is fit to be given a second term.
413.24wp
9. At this ex-parte ad-interim stage, the facts before us
are that, the Petitioner has not been selected. His first term would
be expiring on 09/02/2024 and a candidate has been selected for
appointment to the said position, to take charge, thereafter. In
view of these circumstances, we are not granting interim relief to
the Petitioner by issuance of a Writ of Mandamus at this stage,
directing that, though he is not selected, he should be continued as
a Member, beyond the end of his tenure.
10. Nevertheless, since this Writ Petition has been filed,
the newly selected candidate, who is likely to join, would not gain
any right to the said position and no equities or right would be
created in his favour, until the decision in this Writ Petition.
Needless to state, his selection and appointment would be subject
to the result of this Writ Petition.
11. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner prays that,
this Writ Petition be decided at admission stage. We accept his
request. After the pleadings are completed and the record is
available before us, this Petition would be taken up for final
hearing and admission.
413.24wp
12. All office objections shall be removed on or before
22/02/2024, failing which, this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed
without reference to the Court on 23/02/2024.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
Signed by: Sachin J Kulkarni
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/02/2024 15:07:19
