All matters relating to his service conditions in connection with the affairs of the Union, any State, or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government, are considered service matters.
Can PILs be entertained in service matters?
Can an employee who made a false declaration or suppressed their involvement in a criminal matter be appointed to a service or continue with it as a matter of right?
The Supreme Court has observed that Public Interest Litigation (PILs) should not be entertained when it relates to conditions of service.
According to the Supreme Court, an employee who makes a false declaration and/or conceals the material fact of their involvement in a criminal case is not entitled to be appointed to a service or to continue in service as a matter of right.
Vishal Ashok Thorat vs Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate on 19 July, 2019
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5444 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.31957 OF 2018)
Vishal Ashok Thorat and ors. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & ors. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5446 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.2658 OF 2019)
State of Maharashtra ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and ors. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5445 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.31580 OF 2018)
Abhijit Appasahab Vasagade & ors. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and others. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
1. Signature Not Verified All these appeals have been filed against the common Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT judgment dated 28.09.2018 of the Bombay High Court, Bench Date: 2019.07.19 16:54:46 IST Reason:
at Nagpur in W.P.No. 1270 of 2018 filed by Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate, respondent no.1 in these appeals by which judgment the High Court has partly allowed the writ petition of respondent no.1.
2. We may first notice the facts and events leading to filing of these appeals.
3. In transport Department of the State of Maharashtra there were posts of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C. Under proviso to Article 309, Governor of Maharashtra by notification dated 23.12.2016 framed the Rules namely “Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C in Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules 2016” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2016”).
4. The State government sent a requisition on 29.12.2016 to Maharashtra Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as MPSC) for conducting examinations. MPSC issued advertisement no. 2 of 2017 dated 30.01.2017 inviting online applications for 188 posts of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector Group-C for which Preliminary Examination was to take place on 30.04.2017 and Main Examination of eligible candidate was likely to be held on 06.08.2017. The State government had sent further requisition for additional 670 posts. MPSC issued a declaration notifying 858 posts which subsequently reduced to 833 posts. Relevant examination was conducted on 30.04.2017 in which more than 69,000 candidates participated.
5. On 30.06.2017, result of preliminary exam was declared in which 9,870 candidates were declared qualified for the Mains examination. On 01.07.2017, MPSC issued advertisement no.48 of 2017 for Main examination which was conducted on 06.08.2017. Writ Petition No.7329 of 2017 was filed by respondent No.1 challenging only the Rules, 2016 which petition was disposed of by the High Court on 13.11.2017 granting leave to writ petitioner to make appropriate representation to the State Government. The State Government was directed to take suitable decision in the next two months. The State Government vide order dated 01.02.2018 rejected the representation of respondent No.1. The MPSC declared the final result of examination publishing a select list of 832 candidates on 31.03.2018. On 07.05.2018, MPSC recommended 832 candidates to the State Government for appointment State Government on 15.05.2018 directed Transport Commissioner to take further steps for 832 selected candidates. On 05.06.2018, Transport Commissioner asked selected candidates to come for verification of documents.
6. The respondent No.1 filed a second Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2018 challenging only Rules, 2016 in which writ petition, petitioner filed an amendment application praying for quashing of the advertisements dated 30.01.2017 and 01.07.2017 as well as list of selected candidates which amendment application was allowed by the High Court on 13.04.2018. The High Court on 12.06.2018 had passed an interim order for maintaining status quo.
7. Apart from writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 challenging the Rules and subsequently the advertisement, there had been several challenges before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court pertaining to 2016 Rules and the Advertisement no. 2 of 2017 and 48 of 2017.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
Service matters refer to all issues connected to the terms and circumstances of a service, such as tenure, confirmation, seniority, and promotion. There is no universal central legislation governing service matters in India. However, various rules have been formulated for respective services which govern their operation.
Legal procedures involved in service matters can be complex. An expert labour/service lawyer can develop a comprehensive strategy for your involvement in a case related to service matters. Service matters often fall within the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals and not courts. It ahs been reiterated by High Courts and the Supreme Court that an administrative tribunal is not an alternative for service matters but the only resort. Therefore, it is important to engage the services of a service lawyer who is best suited for these matters and understands the intricacies of administrative tribunals.
669+ Lawyers are online 
