Unsuccessful Candidate Lacks Locus Standi to Challenge Selection Absent Demonstrated Violation of Statutory Rules

The Petitioner, an Associate Professor and Senate member, applied for the post of Registrar at Savitribai Phule Pune University (Respondent No. 2) following an advertisement dated February 1, 2024

Although the Petitioner was found eligible and interviewed on July 11, 2024, Respondent No. 6 was eventually appointed to the post on March 23, 2026

The Petitioner challenged this appointment on the grounds that Respondent No. 6 was facing disciplinary proceedings involving allegations by women teachers and had allegedly suppressed these facts

Furthermore, the Petitioner argued that the previous employer had revoked the "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) for Respondent No. 6, rendering him ineligible

1. Whether an unsuccessful candidate has the locus standi to challenge the appointment of a selected candidate without seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto or demonstrating a personal right to the post

2. Whether the mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or the revocation of an NOC by a previous employer automatically disqualifies a candidate from a public appointment under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016

The court primarily applied the principle that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, as established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India

It relied on R.K. Jain v. Union of India regarding the non-justiciability of comparative merit in judicial review

The court further applied the doctrine from Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, which bars Public Interest Litigations (PIL) in service matters

Regarding the Writ of Quo Warranto, the court followed University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply..., holding that such a writ only lies if there is a clear violation of statutory legal authority or qualification

Finally, it distinguished Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, noting that while a charge-sheet initiates proceedings, it does not constitute a finding of guilt or an automatic statutory bar to appointment

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner lacked locus standi because he failed to demonstrate a violation of statutory rules or a personal legal right to be appointed; he was merely an eligible candidate who was not selected

The Court emphasized that it cannot sit as an appellate body over the selection committee's assessment of merit

On the merits of the disqualification claim, the Court found that the Petitioner could not point to any specific provision in the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, that disqualifies a candidate solely due to pending disciplinary proceedings by a former employer

The Court held that the truth of the allegations against Respondent No. 6 was a matter for the disciplinary authority and the University to resolve, not a ground for a collateral challenge by a disappointed competitor

The prayer for the Court to appoint a "suitable candidate" was deemed inherently vague and outside the scope of Article 226

The Court concluded that administrative delay and pending inquiries do not automatically invalidate an appointment in the absence of a statutory prohibition. The Writ Petition was dismissed, the rule was discharged, and no costs were awarded