Writ court cannot substitute its own view for that of the government in a matter of policy: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court ruled that writ court cannot substitute its own view for that of the government in a matter of policy.
Background
The Petitioner’s professional ambition is to be appointed an Assistant Public Prosecutor under the State Government.Much of what follows turns on an appreciation of Government policy that is enunciated or reflected in the GR in question. This can be traced to the very peculiar social problems and upheavals that were caused by the COVID pandemic and lockdown from March 2020 onwards. The Government Resolution seeks to give benefits until 31st December 2022 to candidates who crossed a specified age limit during the period from 1st March 2020 until the date of the GR, 17th December 2021. Thus, three dates emerge as crucial for the operation of the Government Resolution. The first is the date of the GR, 17th December 2021. Its benefits operate from a prior date, 1st March 2020, roughly the onset of the COVID pandemic and lockdown and the ensuing difficulties for a large portion of the Indian populace. The third date is the cut-off date and this is fixed as 31st December 2022.
Arguments
Advocate Pai contended that this end date of 17th December 2021 is irrational and has no discernible or cogent nexus to the object of the GR. Logically, the correct cut-off date, should be the date of the advertisement, i.e. 7th January 2022. There is no intelligible differentia to separate those eligible from those ineligible.
Decision
The division bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar and Justice G. S. Patel said that what the submission from Mr Pai really means is that in exercise of our writ jurisdiction we should rewrite a particular term of the GR, and, although he calls this a process of reading down, we should specify some totally different date from that mentioned in the GR, or perhaps even no date at all.
The court rejected the submission of Advocate Pai and said that what date should be fixed for the operation of any particular GR, either as the starting or the ending point, is a matter of government policy.
The court while rejecting the petition stated that a writ court will not substitute its own view for that of the government in a matter of policy. Unless a particular government action is found to be ultra vires the Constitution or a statute on settled tests, a writ court will not interfere merely because it is preferable to do so.
Case title: Sandhya Manohar Waghchoure v/s The State of Maharashtra
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO.1117 OF 2022
