Summary
The High Court could not redraw a motor-vehicle inspector select list through a recruitment-rule challenge after holding that the petitioner could not challenge the governing advertisements. Affected selected candidates had not been impleaded by the petitioner, and the service dispute could not be treated as a public-interest case. The rule-validity questions were expressly left open, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner could obtain alteration of the selection through a rule challenge when his advertisement challenge was unavailable.
- Whether the selected candidates were necessary parties and the service dispute could be entertained as public-interest litigation.
Held
- Having refused the advertisement challenge, the High Court could not indirectly grant the same recruitment relief by striking down associated rules and directing modification of the resulting select list. (¶¶ 30–32, 38–40)
- Selection did not create an absolute right to appointment but did confer a right to consideration. The petitioner could not obtain an adverse order against selected candidates without bringing the affected candidates before the court; the seniority-policy precedent relied on did not govern these facts. (¶ 33–37)
- The petition was not framed as public-interest litigation, and the High Court could not justify entertaining this service matter as such merely by invoking public revenue and public-service concerns. (¶ 38–40)
- The Court did not decide the substantive validity of the challenged experience, licensing and probation rules; those questions were left for an appropriate case. (¶ 40–41)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and writ petition dismissed. Validity of the challenged 2016 rules left open. Parties bear their own costs.