Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, V.G. Bisht, JJ.
Vrushali Vilas Kuchekar - Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Public Service Commission - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2460 of 2017
Decided On : 17-03-2021
Discrimination - Judicial Service Rules - Rule 6(2)(a) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 - The court discussed the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, which put a cut of marks of 40% in viva-voce examination. The petitioner challenged the discrimination against Scheduled Caste candidates at the viva-voce stage. The court analyzed the relevant provisions and their interpretations, highlighting the importance of the interview process and the criteria for assessment of performance in viva-voce. The court also considered the petitioner's failure in the selection process and the estoppel to challenge the selection procedure subsequently.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate belonging to the Scheduled Caste, challenged the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, which put a cut of marks of 40% in viva-voce examination. The petitioner participated in the selection process, securing 120 marks out of 200 in the written examination and 13 marks out of 50 in the interview, but was not declared successful. The petitioner sought relief against the respondents to consider her for appointment to the post of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge, Junior Division.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process without protest and having failed, cannot challenge the selection process or the validity of the proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Service Rules. The court also noted that the petitioner's challenge to the constitutional validity of the second proviso lacked merit and was dismissed. Additionally, the petitioner's age bar had been crossed, and no relief could be granted as the selection process had been completed, with two more processes conducted thereafter.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the challenge to the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, discrimination against Scheduled Caste candidates at the viva-voce stage, and the petitioner's eligibility for appointment to the post of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge, Junior Division.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process without protest and having failed, cannot challenge the selection process or the validity of the proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Service Rules. The court also found that the petitioner's challenge to the constitutional validity of the second proviso lacked merit and was dismissed. Additionally, the petitioner's age bar had been crossed, and no relief could be granted as the selection process had been completed, with two more processes conducted thereafter.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT
R.D. Dhanuka, J. - Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent of parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the second proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 to the extent of putting a cut of mark 40% in viva-voce examination and also prays for quashing and setting aside the advertisement more particularly condition no.8.4 by holding that it is ultra-vires the Article 14 to the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed for an order and direction against the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for recommendation for appointment of the post of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge, Junior Division. The petitioner has prayed for an order and direction against the respondents to produce the name of panels, who had conducted the interviews and the candidates who appeared before them in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent no.1.
3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :
The petitioner, who is an advocate, has obtained degree of B.Sc. and later completed LL.B. course. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa some time in the year 2009.
4. In the year 2015, the respondent no.1 issued an advertisement for holding a preliminary examination for the post of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge Junior Division. The petitioner had submitted her application pursuant to the said advertisement and was given an attempt card. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner appeared for the written examination held on 4th October, 2015 and was declared as successful therein. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the performance of the petitioner in the written examination, the petitioner was eligible for the oral interview. The petitioner accordingly appeared for interview. The respondent no.1 declared the final result. It is the case of the petitioner that in the final result which was available in the month of March, 2016, the petitioner came to know that she had scored only 13 marks in the interview out of 50 marks and 120 marks out of 200 marks in the written examination.
5. On 4th April, 2016, the petitioner preferred an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act and applied for certain information including a list of recommend candidates for the said post of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge, Junior Division. The petitioner was given the list of recommend candidates as well as the list of candidates who were though initially qualified but were not qualified after interview. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the respondent no.2 on 2nd July, 2016 and also on 25th July, 2016. The petitioner did not receive any reply from the respondent no.2 in response to the said representations. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner personally went and met the Desk Officer and was informed orally that the file of the petitioner had been closed. It is the case of the petitioner that in the list of candidates called for interviews for the said post, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial no.417. The petitioner secured 120 marks out of 200 marks in the written examination and 13 marks out of 50 marks in the interview. On 18th February, 2017 the petitioner filed this writ petition.
6. Dr.Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various exhibits annexed to the writ petition. He placed reliance on condition no.8.4 of the advertisement issued by the respondent no.1 and also on the second proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. He submits that the said Rule 6 contemplated recruitment by nomination and fixed a limit of 15 marks of viva-voce examination. He submits that under the first proviso to Rule 6(2)(a), relaxation of marks in the writt
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
