Professional Documents
Culture Documents
13
C
ou
rt
]
]
]
]
] ... Pe titioner
ig
h
Versus
]
]
]
]
]
] ... Respondents
ba
y
om
Mr. A. Bukhari with Mr. Atul Daga, Mr. Suraj Iyer i/b Ganesh & Co.
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Lancy D'Souza with Ms. Pragati Deodhar i/b U.M. Parkar for the
Respondent No.1.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, &
K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ.
FRIDAY, 25TH OCTOBER, 2013
OSWP1319.13
rt
C
ou
2.
ig
h
3.
ba
y
Writ Petition (Lodg) No. 2825 of 2012 in the case of Sonali Pramod
Dhawde & Ors. vs. the respondents to this petition. It is necessary,
om
4.
SRP 2/20
OSWP1319.13
5.
C
ou
rt
ig
h
ba
y
om
recruitment drive and thanked it for the opportunity for its students to
SRP 3/20
OSWP1319.13
rt
C
ou
the respondent, the said institute stated that the respondent "had
recruited five candidates of MBA programme from its institute at the
ig
h
further stated that the students were waiting to join the respondent.
The institute addressed a reminder by its e-mail dated 12th April,
6.
ba
y
2012.
2013.
om
SRP 4/20
ig
h
C
ou
rt
OSWP1319.13
order :-
ba
y
7.
om
8.
SRP 5/20
OSWP1319.13
stated that the said judgment restrained the first respondent from
rt
C
ou
already made. The petitioner requested that orders for her posting be
issued.
9.
ig
h
ba
y
10.
petitioner submitted that the said judgment and order did not affect the
om
SRP 6/20
OSWP1319.13
C
ou
11.
rt
ig
h
ba
y
the letters of appointment. All the 238 candidates stand on the same
footing. It was the respondents' case itself that all 238 candidates
om
the judgment which read as under :"39. On the basis of this approval to the amended
recruitment policy, which was intended to be only one
time measure and to make those appointments on contract
basis, the appointment process through campus interview
to fill up the regular posts earmarked for direct recruits,
has been resorted to on year to year basis since 2009. That
SRP 7/20
OSWP1319.13
C
ou
rt
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
1012-13
Total
858
1155
17
1538*
3567
Intake of Officers
Through Campus
20
82
98
238*
438
ig
h
Year
om
ba
y
SRP 8/20
OSWP1319.13
rt
C
ou
recruitment for the period 2012-2013 and that single star (*) shown in
the table is incorrect. This is obvious from the context as well. It is
also admitted that the petitioner also falls within 12.27% referred to in
12.
ig
h
238 candidates were recruited. In other words, they were not merely
to be considered for appointment.
ba
y
om
SRP 9/20
OSWP1319.13
rt
earlier.
C
ou
13.
stated that the said students / candidates had been "selected". The
respondents did not refute the same.
ig
h
ba
y
om
selection committee."
SRP 10/20
OSWP1319.13
rt
14.
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
15.
having been dismissed, does not affect the petitioner's case. The
respondents challenged the judgment and did not seek to construe it.
om
The petitioner before us has not challenged the judgment. She has
sought to construe the judgment of the Division Bench of this court.
The order of the Supreme Court did not construe the judgment. It
merely rejected the petition. It cannot therefore, be held that the
Supreme Court impliedly rejected the respondents' construction of the
SRP 11/20
OSWP1319.13
C
ou
16.
rt
judgment.
one Kumari Neha Singh and the rejection thereof by the Supreme
Court. The petitioner in addition to challenging the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court also sought to construe it as is evident
ig
h
from paragraph XVIII and XIX of the SLP which read as under :-
om
ba
y
"XVIII
For that the action of the bank is contrary
to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay wherein in paragraph 58 the Hon'ble High
Court has clearly had categorically have stated "the
respondents are directed to forbear from making any
appointment against the permanent vacancy on regular
basis by resorting to campus recruitment/interview
mechanism hereinafter and if such appointment is made
the same will be non-est in law".
XIX
For that the Judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court was very clear that after the Judgment has been
pronounced i.e. 01.04.2013 no campus recruitment has
been made but the petitioner's recruitment was made on
28.02.2012 which therefore, does not come under the
purview of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Bombay. Therefore, the action of
the bank is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the
direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay."
SRP 12/20
C
ou
"
ORDER
Heard.
Permission to file SLP is granted.
Delay condoned.
The special leave petition is dismissed."
rt
OSWP1319.13
The permission to file the SLP was obviously in view of the fact
that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in which the
judgment was delivered by this Court. The Supreme Court, therefore,
ig
h
granted permission to file the SLP. In other words, the Supreme Court
17.
ba
y
had contended that the campus recruitment had been made prior to the
judgment and, therefore, the recruitment did not come under the
purview of the judgment. The contention raised in the above grounds
om
is similar to the one raised before us. We are not concerned here with
a challenge to the order of the Division Bench of this Court. Indeed, it
SRP 13/20
OSWP1319.13
having held that the action of the bank is not contrary to the order of
rt
C
ou
18.
ig
h
The Supreme Court held that while hearing the petition for Special
Leave to Appeal, the Supreme Court does not exercise its appellate
jurisdiction - it merely exercises its discretionary jurisdiction as to
ba
y
om
jurisdiction was not made out. It was further held that when a Special
Leave Petition is dismissed, the Supreme Court does not comment
SRP 14/20
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
OSWP1319.13
SRP 15/20
ig
h
C
ou
rt
OSWP1319.13
om
ba
y
SRP 16/20
C
ou
rt
OSWP1319.13
om
ba
y
ig
h
SRP 17/20
OSWP1319.13
The ratio of the judgment would apply even in cases such as the
rt
one before us. In fact, in such cases it would apply with greater force.
C
ou
This is for the reason that the petitioner was not even a party to the
Writ Petition in which the Division Bench of this Court passed the
ig
h
the Division Bench passed the said judgment. If a party who was
before the Court is not barred from even filing a review before the
High Court despite the fact that a Special Leave Petition was
dismissed, it can hardly be suggested that a third party cannot file an
application, including a Writ Petition which involves the construction
ba
y
om
19.
State of Gujarat & Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 202, which reads as under:
"14. Relying upon a judgment of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeals Nos. 1546 to 1549 of
1998 decided on 30-6-1999 (copy of which has been
placed on the record) wherein a similar action of the
Government of Andhra Pradesh relating to the similar
SRP 18/20
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
OSWP1319.13
SRP 19/20
20.
C
ou
rt
OSWP1319.13
judgment of the Division Bench and that the dismissal of the SLP filed
21.
ig
h
ba
y
December, 2013.
S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
om
K.R. SHRIRAM, J.
SRP 20/20