Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Vishnu Dattarao Gite & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 8210, 8250, 10576 of 2016 with Writ Petition (St.) No. 22262 of 2016
Decided On : 14/16-09-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Avinash B. Avhad, Mr. Yuvraj P. Narvankar, Mr. Vasant R. Kadam, Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Mr. Vinod Sangvikar
For the Respondent: Ms. Sushma Bhende, Mr. Rahul Nerlekar
Headnote:
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the State Government are bound by the views of the High Court in respect of recruitments and appointments in the district judiciary. The MPSC should move the Government and the Government, through its competent ministry, namely the Law and Judiciary, should seek the views and opinion of the High Court before allowing the MPSC to issue and insert a fresh advertisement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of Rule 10(8)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Procedural Rules/Rules of Procedure. The writ petitions also sought quashing and setting aside of a letter dated 27th June, 2016 addressed by the Additional Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the MPSC Rules cannot override the Judicial Service Rules. The court also held that the wait-list prepared by the MPSC was valid for one year from the date of declaration of result or up to the publication of subsequent advertisement for recruitment to the same post, whichever is earlier.
Issues: Whether the MPSC Rules can override the Judicial Service Rules. Whether the wait-list prepared by the MPSC was valid for one year from the date of declaration of result or up to the publication of subsequent advertisement for recruitment to the same post, whichever is earlier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MPSC Rules cannot override the Judicial Service Rules because the MPSC is merely assisting the High Court in the recruitment process. The court also held that the wait-list prepared by the MPSC was valid for one year from the date of declaration of result or up to the publication of subsequent advertisement for recruitment to the same post, whichever is earlier, because this is what is provided for in the Judicial Service Rules.
Final Decision: The court made the Rule partially absolute. It was declared that the Rules of Procedure framed by the MPSC would not override the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, insofar as the matters discussed and covered in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. However, relief to the petitioners as prayed in the petitions was denied.
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By these petitions, the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of Rule 10(8)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Procedural Rules/Rules of Procedure. The writ petitions also seek quashing and setting aside of a letter dated 27th June, 2016 addressed by the Additional Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra.
3. Alternatively, a declaration is claimed that the rules of procedure, framed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the MPSC”) do not override the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Judicial Service Rules”).
4. We would take the facts, which are more or less similar to all petitions from Writ Petition No. 8210 of 2016.
5. The petitioner therein is an advocate by profession. He has stated that he is permanent citizen of India. He has completed his B.S.L.L.L.B. from Pune University in 2012. He came across an advertisement of the second respondent MPSC published on 3rd March, 2015. That advertisement was inserted to seek applications for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class (hereinafter referred to as “CJJD and JMFC”). It is claimed that in all 227 posts were to be filled in.
6. Annexure 'A' to the petition is a copy of this advertisement and the petitioner states that the MPSC holds a preliminary examination and those successful thereat are permitted to go ahead and take the main examination. The petitioner claims that he appeared for the preliminary examination held on 31st May, 2015. He was successful at the same and thereafter appeared for the main examination on 4th October, 2015. He had also received a call for appearing for the interview and he attended the same. The interview was held on 15th January, 2016. In para 4 of the petition, the petitioner states that the second respondent commission declared the final result on 10th March, 2016. A merit list of 307 candidates was displayed. The petitioner secured 131 marks out of 250. A perusal of the merit list reveals that the candidates from serial number 220 to 230 have secured same marks, namely 131. It is stated by the petitioner that the candidates have been placed in the merit list as per their seniority. The petitioner's name appears at serial number 228 in the merit list of 307 candidates. The entire list is compiled and a copy thereof is at Annexure 'C'.
7. The second respondent commission recommended the names of 227 candidates for appointment. The recommendations were duly forwarded to respondent no. 1, namely, the Government of Maharashtra appearing before us through the Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department. The third respondent to the writ petition is the Registrar General of this court. The petitioner's case is that the further process was to be carried out after the receipt of this list by the Department of Law and Judiciary. The claim of the petitioner is that the candidates appearing at serial number 228 onwards are wait-listed candidates. The list from that serial number up to 307 candidates is taken as wait-list. The petitioner then complains that though 227 candidates were to be appointed, the names of exactly 227 candidates from serial number 1 to 227 were forwarded. The names of 307 candidates were not forwarded.
8. The petitioner states that all the candidates, out of the list of recommended 227 candidates, were not likely to join. Some are bound to drop out in the further process or even if they go through, it is quite likely that they would indicate that they are not keen to join. It is in these circumstances the petitioner, relying upon the past experience and also from one of the successful lady candidate came to know that though she was at serial number 1 in the merit list, she was not desirous of accepting the appointment. The petitioner then relies upon not onl
