KU SONALI RAMKRISHNA BAYANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) On 12-9-2003, we passed the following order:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the petitioner participated in the selection process, he is entitled to challenge the selection process. Relying upon Basheshwar Nath vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and Anr., 1959 AIR(SC) 149 the learned Counsel submitted that waiver of fundamental right does not arise and whereever breach of fundamental right is there,a person or a citizen cannot give up or waive breach of fundamental right. He also relied upon Olga Tellis and Ors., Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors, 1986 AIR(SC) 180 wherein the same legal position was reiterated that there can be no estoppel against or waiver of fundamental right. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2002 AIR(SC) 2877 and contended that in case of challenge to unconstitutional discrimination, the doctrine of acquiescence, estoppel, set out in the law, does not apply. The Counsel for petitioner submitted that the appointment made solely on the basis of interview is grossly illegal and in support of this proposition he relied upon Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., 1981 AIR(SC) 487 and Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., 2001 AIR(SC) 152