The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of vested rights for the petitioners and the role of the State Government in making appointments, as well as the justifiability of necessary changes after the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

S.M. Modak, J. - The Petitioners are amongst 413 persons who were selected and recommended by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) to the Government for different post. When they appear for the examination (as per advertisement dated 10th February 2018 issued by MPSC) there was reservation in force for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). It was as per the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) act, 2018 passed by the State Legislatures. However, these successful recommondees could not get appointment Order.

2 It was due to several reasons. When their recommendation was pending with the Government, there was ban on fresh recruitment due to Covid-19 pandemic. another reason is filing of Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Dr. Jishri Laxmnarao Patil & there were certain orders passed therein. Ultimately Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the SEBC act.

3 The Government issued Resolutions as per observations by Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently, MPSC called for fresh preferences and declared revised results. The Petitioners could not pass out these revised norms. That is why these Petitioners have filed these two Petitions.

4 Petitioner Vishwanath and Petitioner arati belongs to SEBC and NT (B) female category, respectively. and they claim that their names were initially recommended by MPSC for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. There is change in cut off for these posts. The Petitioners could not overcome that cut off and hence they were unsuccessful in the examination. WP 6290/2021 was filed initially and WP 6570/21 was filed lateron. Whereas Interveners are some of the successful recommendees and they have opposed the petitions for the reason that if the Petitions are allowed it will affect atleast 400 candidates (who are selected by proper procedure and who are waiting for their appointments. Respondent No.1 is State of Maharashtra and Respondent No.2 is MPSC through its Secretary.

5 They are challenging most of the actions/decisions taken by Government of Maharashtra and implemented by MPSC after the Orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court during pendency of the Petition and after its final disposal. They have also sought for writ of mandamus thereby giving appointments to 413 candidates. They have sought for various reliefs. They have focused on :-

1) decision to covert 55 posts from SEBC category to Open category (& not converting into EWS category);

2) decision to call preferences again;

3) changing rules from Scheme of Examination in the midst of process.

6 There are notifications, declarations and results published by the Respondents. They are challenged in both these Petitions. In nutshell, they are as follows :-

Group 'a' :

(a) challenged the G.R. dated 15 July 2021;

(b) challenged the Notification/Declarations dated 5 august 2021, 6 august 2021, 12 august 2021 and 8 September 2021;

(c) challenged the results dated 6 august 2021 and 28 September 2021;

(d) challenged the changes brought in the recruitment process vide declaration dated 30 September 2021.

Group 'B' :

(a) sought a writ of mandamus thereby declaring the result dated 19 June 2020;

(b) asked for directions thereby giving appointments as per the recommendations dated 14 august 2020 to 413 candidates

7 On this background, we have heard Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. a.S. Gaikwad for the Petitioners, Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing for MPSC, Mr. Pawar, learned aGP for the State and Ms. Neeta Karnik, learned Counsel appearing for the Interveners. also perused their written notes of arguments and gone through their citations.

8 We are supposed to decide these Petitions on following issues :-

(a) Whether the Petitioners being successful recommondess (as per first result) have vested right of appointment ?

(b) Whether their grievance about 'change of preferences by MPSC