1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5646 OF 2010 Shrikant Hanmantrao Kumthekar .... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Others. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare,Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - State . Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 26/08/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the Order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative 2 Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad ( For short, ‘ Tribunal ’ ) dated 10/06/2010 dismissing the petitioner’s Original Application No. 135 of 2010, in which the petitioner had challenged the advertisement / Notification dated 21/11/2009 issued by respondent no. 2 i.e. the Collector and Ex-officio Chairman of the Selection Committee, Beed on the ground that the advertisement was in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1992 ( Supplement ) III SCC - 217. In the said Original Application before the Tribunal, the petitioner also prayed to take up the recruitment process afresh in conformity of the provisions of law as decided by the Apex Court while filling horizontal reservation. 2. The petitioner approached the Tribunal with the aforesaid prayers in the Original Application. The Tribunal dismissed the application only on the ground that the entire selection list is likely to be upset and will need to be rearranged, if whole process is scrutinized and then the Original Application would acquire the nature of Public Interest Litigation which the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain. The Tribunal further considered the submission of the interveners that the petitioner’s application suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. The Tribunal has held that it will amount to entertaining a Public Interest Litigation, since at this stage, it is difficult to decide who would be the affected parties, if the 3 Tribunal comes to the conclusion that horizontal reservations have not been operated in conformity with the Govt. Resolution dated 16/03/1999. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was one of the candidates in the selection process and, therefore, the petitioner’s Original Application is maintainable and could not have been thrown out merely on the ground that the process in the application was likely to upset the entire selection list. 4. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6, who are the successful candidates submit that they will abide by the order of this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the application would acquire the nature of Public Interest Litigation merely because the entire selection list was likely to upset if the petitioner’s contentions would be accepted. The essence of the Public Interest Litigation is that the persons belonging to social and economical disadvantage classes and the persons from weaker sections of the society can not approach the Court for protection of their rights, the Court relax the rule of locus standi and permits the third party to approach the Court on behalf of disadvantage persons. 4 6. In the facts of the instant case, the petitioner himself was one of the candidates and aggrieved by the selection process, particularly in the matter of horizontal reservation, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal. If the petitioner’s contentions were to be accepted, the selection list would be upset and it need to be rearranged or any other direction is required to be given by the Tribunal, it can not be the ground for holding that the application was in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. 7. In view of the above, we quash and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 10/06/2010, remit the matter back to the Tribunal and the Original Application No. 135 of 2010 shall be restored to the file of the Tribunal. We make it clear that respondent nos. 5 and 6 were joined in the present petition at their own instance to be joined as respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the Original Application before the Tribunal. The question whether the petition against respondent nos. 5 and 6 should be in their representative capacity or that the Tribunal should require the petitioner to take appropriate steps under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may be considered by the Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The papers shall be sent back to the Tribunal as the Original Application No. 135 of 2010 is listed before the Tribunal. The ad-interim 5 relief granted by this Court dated 13/07/2010 shall continue. 9. It is clarified that since we have not gone into the merits of the controversy, therefore, all the contentions are kept open. CHIEF JUSTICE [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/ WP 5646.2010