"Why don't you (a lawyer who is also appearing in the exam) go and prepare for the examination instead of filing this PIL"? a bench of justices B D Ahmed and Siddharth Mridul said.
The bench also said the matter is not a PIL and is a personal litigation so the petitioner, Vikas Nagwan, should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
"Why don't you (Nagwan) prepare and seat for your exam, instead of filing a PIL? Does this court have the jurisdiction? Why don't you go to the CAT? If you are a candidate appearing for the upcoming exam, then go to the CAT," it said.
The single judge bench had refused to hear that plea saying it was not "maintainable". The court, however, had granted him the liberty to file a PIL on the issue.
More From This Section
However, the larger bench today raised objections to the maintainability of the PIL and asked the lawyer to give reasons that it was worthy to be heard as a PIL.
"Tell me one thing, how can this petition be entertained? If you are personally coming here, then it means this is not a PIL...," the court said.
The petitioner then withdrew his PIL after the court granted him the liberty to file an "appropriate petition" before the CAT.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Centre, also opposed the plea, saying a similar petition was filed before another bench by another person so there is no point in entertaining this.