2022 Supreme(Bom) 720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
DIPANKAR DATTA, M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
Vikas Balwant Alase & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India through Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 2663 OF 2021, INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1411, 1412, 1413, 1477, 1478, 2162, 3565, 3658, 1054, 4059, 4060, 8099 OF 2021, INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14883 OF 2021, WRIT PETITION NO. 3688 to 3704 OF 2020, WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 7575, 7891, 59, 7549, 13088 OF 2021, 97609, 97757, 98066, 98309 OF 2020
Decided on : 29-07-2022
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Mr. Sayyed Tauseef
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Sakhare, Mr. Kiran Gandhi, Little and Co. Mr. Neel Helekar, Mr. P. Khosla
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 15, Article 16 - Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 - Writ petitions concerning recruitment for posts reserved for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) - Candidates from SEBC sought to be permitted to participate in selection for EWS positions - Court upheld the distinction between EWS and SEBC categories, ruled that changes in selection criteria mid-process are impermissible - G.Rs allowing SEBC candidates to participate in EWS selection quashed as illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 50, 51)
(B) Recruitment Process - Change in criteria midway - The court held that allowing SEBC candidates to partake in EWS selections after the process had commenced violated the constitutional principle of distinct categories as recognized under Article 15. (Paras 34, 50)
(C) Rights of Candidates - Candidates from EWS have a vested right to be considered for appointments in accordance with the rules existing when the recruitment process was initiated. (Paras 18, 50)
Facts of the case:
The controversy centered on recruitment for various posts, where EWS candidates opposed the participation of SEBC candidates in selection meant for EWS after interim Supreme Court orders halted SEBC reservations. EWS candidates claimed the actions were arbitrary, violating pre-existing rules. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court declared that applying retrospective G.R.s allowing SEBC candidates to vie for EWS positions was illegal, maintaining that the recruitment process must adhere to criteria established prior to the selection process. (Paras 50, 51)
Issues: Whether SEBC candidates could be permitted to apply for EWS vacancies after recruitment commencement and the implications of retrospective G.R.s on ongoing selections. (Paras 34, 50)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the rules governing recruitment must not be altered retrospectively, reaffirming the importance of maintaining distinct categories within the reservation framework. (Paras 34, 50)
Result: Writ petitions by EWS candidates allowed, while those by SEBC candidates were dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues in ews and sebc recruitment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ews candidates argue against sebc benefits. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 3. msedcl and state argue sebc's inclusion in ews. (Para 19 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. judicial principle against retrospective application in recruitment. (Para 45 , 46) |
| 5. court retains ews reservation process integrity. (Para 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT :
M. S. KARNIK, J.
1. Before we state the facts in detail, a birds eye view of the controversy is set out for convenience, considering that a large number of petitions need to be dealt with involving common issues. We are dealing with two groups pitted against each other espousing their respective cause. These writ petitions are clubbed together as common questions are involved. One group pertains to the writ petitions filed by the candidates selected to the posts reserved for Economically Weaker Sections (hereafter ‘EWS’ for short) category, and the other group of writ petitions is filed by the candidates selected/aspiring to the posts reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Class (hereafter “SEBC” for short) in respect of the recruitment process initiated by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (hereafter ‘MSEDCL’ for short) pursuant to the advertisement bearing No.MSEDCL-04/2019 (hereafter ‘the advertisement’ for short), Advertisement No. 05/2019, and Advertisement No. 06/2019 for filling up the vacancies of ‘Electricity Assistant’, ‘Upkendra Sahayyak’, and ‘Diploma Engineer – Trainee (Distribution)’ respectively.
(a) It is the case of the EWS candidates that they are a separate and distinct category for the purposes of the present recruitment and recognised as such. The advertisement provide for a separate and distinct reservation for the SEBC. A specified number of vacancies were reserved for the candidates of the SEBC category. This reservation in favour of the SEBC candidates was in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 (hereafter ‘the MSEBC Act’ for short). The constitutional validity of the MSEBC Act was challenged in this Court. The challenge failed. The decision of this Court upholding the constitutional validity of the MSEBC Act was challenged in the Supreme Court. Pending the challenge, the advertisement came to be issued by the MSEDCL for recruitment to the various posts stipulated thereunder. Though a specified number of vacancies were carved out for SEBC reservation, the advertisement provided a condition that the recruitment is subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court. MSEDCL proceeded with the recruitment process. A combined merit list of selected candidates was published on January 17, 2020 by MSEDCL. Thereafter, the Supreme Court passed interim directions in the aforementioned matter. The Supreme Court passed an order that appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without implementing the reservation as provided under the MSEBC Act. As a consequence, after the interim directions of the Supreme Court, the MSEDCL could not have proceeded to fill up the vacant posts reserved for SEBC candidates. The candidates selected against the SEBC reservation were left in a lurch. The State Government then took a decision that those candidates from SEBC category, who otherwise fulfill the eligibility prescribed for open or EWS category, may be considered against the vacancies meant for open or EWS category. The MSEDCL took a decision to comply with the directives of the State Government. EWS category candidates take exception to this decision. The petitioners belonging to EWS category contend that the action of the State Government in allowing
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
