The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that an unsuccessful candidate in a public appointment process lacks standing to challenge the selection of another candidate, even where allegations of pending disciplinary proceedings are raised. The judgment underscores the narrow scope of judicial intervention in merit-based academic appointments and clarifies that eligibility to compete does not equate to a right to be appointed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Harsh Kashinathrao Gaikwad, an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry at Modern College of Arts, Science and Commerce, applied for the post of Registrar at Savitribai Phule Pune University following an advertisement dated 01.02.2024. He held a B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. in Chemistry, had qualified the CSIR-UGC NET and Maharashtra State Eligibility Test, and was appointed as a member of the University Senate on 10.01.2023. After obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from his employer, he submitted his application and was included in the list of eligible candidates published on 15.05.2024, where his name appeared at serial number 14. He appeared for the interview and presentation on 11.07.2024. Nearly nineteen months later, on 23.03.2026, the University appointed Respondent No.6, Dr. Manohar Kacharu Sanap, as Registrar.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was not selected for the post of Registrar.
- Respondent No.6 was appointed despite the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated by his former employer, Modern Education Society, through a charge-sheet dated 02.08.2024 and an additional charge-sheet dated 13.12.2024.
- The petitioner alleged that Respondent No.6 had suppressed material facts by not disclosing the pending proceedings in his declaration, as required under the appointment order.
- The petitioner further contended that the NOC granted to Respondent No.6 by Modern Education Society had been revoked, thereby violating a mandatory condition of the advertisement.
- Respondent No.6 had previously challenged his suspension before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 11237 of 2024, which was set aside on 20.01.2025 on procedural grounds, but the disciplinary proceedings were permitted to continue.
Procedural History
- 01.02.2024: Advertisement issued by Savitribai Phule Pune University for the post of Registrar.
- 15.05.2024: List of eligible candidates published; petitioner’s name included at serial no. 14.
- 20.06.2024: Interview call issued to petitioner.
- 11.07.2024: Petitioner appeared for interview and presentation.
- 02.08.2024: First charge-sheet issued against Respondent No.6 by Modern Education Society.
- 13.12.2024: Additional charge-sheet issued against Respondent No.6.
- 20.01.2025: Bombay High Court set aside suspension of Respondent No.6 in WP No. 11237/2024, but allowed disciplinary proceedings to continue.
- 23.03.2026: Appointment order issued in favor of Respondent No.6.
- 2026: Writ Petition (ST) No. 12972/2026 filed before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the appointment and direction to appoint another candidate from the eligibility list.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position:
- Argued that Respondent No.6 was ineligible due to pending disciplinary proceedings and suppression of facts.
- Relied on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman to assert that disciplinary proceedings commence upon issuance of a charge-sheet.
- Claimed that revocation of NOC invalidated Respondent No.6’s eligibility.
- Contended that the 19-month delay in appointment indicated arbitrariness.
Respondent No.6’s Position:
- Challenged the petitioner’s locus standi, asserting no enforceable right to appointment.
- Argued that the challenge was not based on statutory disqualification but on disputed allegations.
- Stated that the declaration requirement was for the appointing authority to verify, not for third parties to enforce.
- Emphasized that the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the selection committee.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the appointment order dated 23.03.2026.
- Exclusion of Respondent No.6’s name from the eligibility list.
- Direction to the University to appoint a suitable candidate from the remaining eligible list.
The Legal Issue
Can an unsuccessful candidate in a public appointment process maintain a writ petition under Article 226 to quash the appointment of another candidate on grounds of pending disciplinary proceedings, suppression of facts, or delay in selection, without asserting a personal right to the post or demonstrating statutory illegality?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman to argue that the issuance of a charge-sheet constitutes the commencement of disciplinary proceedings, rendering Respondent No.6 ineligible. He contended that the University was aware of the proceedings, having previously adjudicated Respondent No.6’s suspension in WP No. 11237/2024. He further argued that revocation of the NOC and the 19-month delay in appointment rendered the process unfair and violative of principles of natural justice. He asserted that the appointment order’s requirement of a clean declaration was a statutory condition, breach of which invalidated the appointment.
For the Respondent
Respondent No.6 argued that the petitioner had no locus standi, as he was not selected and had no enforceable right to the post. He emphasized that mere eligibility does not confer a right to appointment, citing Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India. He contended that pending disciplinary proceedings do not automatically disqualify a candidate unless explicitly barred by statute or recruitment rules. He further argued that the Court cannot act as a super-appellate authority over merit-based selections and that the petitioner’s prayer for appointment of an unspecified candidate was vague and unenforceable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the foundational principle of locus standi in service appointments. It held that inclusion in an eligibility list does not confer any right to appointment, citing Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India. The petitioner, having failed to secure selection, could not transform his disappointment into a legal grievance merely because another candidate was appointed.
"Eligibility to compete is not a right to appointment. Once the Petitioner participated in the process, appeared before the selection body and failed to secure appointment, the Court cannot convert his disappointment into a cause of action unless he demonstrates violation of statutory rules, malafides specifically pleaded and substantiated, or denial of equal consideration."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on K.V. Jankiraman, clarifying that while the case defines when disciplinary proceedings commence, it does not establish an absolute bar to appointment. The Court emphasized that disqualification must arise from statutory provisions, recruitment rules, or explicit conditions in the advertisement - none of which were cited by the petitioner.
Regarding the revocation of the NOC, the Court held that such disputes are between the employer, the employee, and the appointing authority, and cannot be weaponized by an unrelated third party to seek judicial intervention. The Court further noted that the 19-month delay, while unusual, did not constitute illegality absent a statutory time limit or proof of prejudice to the petitioner’s rights.
On the prayer for appointment of a "suitable candidate" from the list, the Court held that Article 226 does not empower it to substitute the appointing authority’s choice or direct the appointment of an unspecified person. Citing R.K. Jain v. Union of India and Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, the Court reiterated that comparative merit evaluation is non-justiciable and that judicial review is confined to procedural legality, not substantive wisdom.
The Court also clarified that a Writ of Quo Warranto requires proof that the appointee lacks statutory qualifications or holds office without legal authority. Since Respondent No.6 possessed the required qualifications and no statutory bar was shown, the writ could not be granted.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the appointment of Respondent No.6. No direction was issued for appointment of any candidate. There shall be no order as to costs. The Court explicitly stated that its observations do not prejudge the merits of the pending disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.6 or any other litigation involving him.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Eligibility Does Not Confer Appointment Rights
- Practitioners must advise clients that inclusion in an eligibility list does not create a vested right to appointment.
- Disappointment in selection, without proof of statutory violation or malafide, is not a ground for judicial intervention.
Quo Warranto Requires Clear Legal Disqualification
- Challenges to appointments must be grounded in statutory disqualification, not allegations of pending proceedings.
- A charge-sheet alone, without a rule or law barring appointment, cannot form the basis of a Quo Warranto petition.
Courts Will Not Substitute Selection Decisions
-
Courts will not direct appointment of an unspecified candidate from a list, even if one candidate is excluded.
-
Judicial review is limited to procedural fairness, not merit comparison or policy preference.
-
Practitioners should avoid drafting petitions that seek "replacement" of appointees without identifying a specific successor.
-
Public institutions may proceed with appointments despite pending disciplinary proceedings unless explicitly prohibited by law or rules.
-
Any challenge to appointment must be framed as a Quo Warranto with specific statutory violations, not as a general grievance by an unsuccessful candidate.
-
Delay in appointment, without a statutory deadline or prejudice, cannot invalidate a selection process.
-
NOC revocation or non-disclosure issues must be addressed by the employer or appointing authority, not by third-party candidates.
