-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8136 OF 2006. The Municipal Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai, Mumbai & Anr. ..Petitioner. v/s. Swapnil V. Tempe & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, with A.J. Bhoir, i/b. S.H. Ujjainwala, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M. Jaykar, i/b. M/s. Jaykars, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.N.PATEL & : J.N.PATEL & : J.N.PATEL & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2008. : 10TH DECEMBER, 2008. : 10TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, impugning the order dated 28th November 2006 passed by the Hon’ble Acting Chairperson of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, thereby directing the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, to allow the candidates who have passed their written tests, those who have passed their S.S.C. or equivalent or higher examination without Marathi as language before 1997 and who have appeared for the interview and if they are selected or those selected should be placed with the undertaking that they must pass their Marathi language -2- examination within two years from the date of appointment in the Organisation. However, that this order should be implemented immediately and it is also seen that these two candidates who presented this petition before the Commission be allowed to appear for their personal interview without delay for one or other reason and that the order be complied scrupulously and be communicated to the Commission by the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. 3. Mr. Jaikar, the learned counsel for the respondent who is beneficiary to the impugned order submits that the respondents may be permitted to seek appropriate remedy in the matter and they do not want to prosecute their case pursuant to the impugned order that they would withdraw their application filed before the State Human Rights Commission which lead to the passing of the impugned order. 4. Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai submits that in such a factual situation, it will be proper to quash and set aside the impugned order as it would subserve the interest of justice. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned -3- counsel for the respondents in whose benefit the impugned order has been passed, this Court would like to make it clear that the impugned order has been passed by the State Human Rights Commission without having jurisdiction to entertain such petitions and therefore, it will have to be struck down. This Court, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order in view of the fact that this Court has observed that the impugned order has been passed by the State Human Rights Commission granting reliefs which squarely lies in the domain of service jurisdiction. The respondents are free to approach an appropriate Forum having jurisdiction in the matter without prejudice to their rights and contentions. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.] [J.N.PATEL, [J.N.PATEL, [J.N.PATEL, J.] J.] J.]