Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Mayur Arun Tapase – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No.8852, 10276 of 2022
Decided on : 11-04-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar
For the Respondent: Mr. M. M. Pabale
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Factories Act - Challenge - Seeking appointment - Eligibility criteria - Possessing Decree - Verification of genuineness of certificates - Qualifying in written examination - Whether ability must be acquired while working in a Government organization or same can be acquired while handling Government vehicles while working in a private organization - Held, Before parting court would like to observe that provisions of Recruitment Rules relating to post of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police are ambiguous and capable of multiple interpretations - It is on account of ambiguity in recruitment Rules that committee came to conclusion that none of candidates possessed requisite experience - This has led to a situation where all three posts have remained unfilled thereby resulting in wastage of time energy and machinery of State Government and MPSC - On giving strict interpretation to Recruitment Rules State Government will have to scout for a candidate who has years experience of handling fleet of government vehicles AND handling government launches AND to train staff - Writ Petitions Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing.
2. By these petitions petitioners challenge the common judgment and order dated 6th June 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dismissing the Original Application Nos. 173 of 2021 and 174 of 2021 filed by them, seeking appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police (Motor Transport). Communication dated 10th September 2020 and 8th October 2020 denying appointments were challenged before the Tribunal.
3. An advertisement was issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) on 16th February 2018 for filling up posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police (Motor Transport). Three posts were advertised. The eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement was possession of Decree or Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering and possession of experience of not less than 3 years in the field. The experience criteria also included ability to handle fleet of Government Vehicles and launches and to train the staff as well as knowledge of Motor Vehicle Act and Factories Act. Preference was to be given to candidates possessing Decree in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering.
4. Petitioners applied in pursuance of the advertisement and participated in the selection process. After qualifying in the written examination held on 30th June 2018, they were invited for interview scheduled to be held on 18th January 2018. MPSC recommended three candidates, including the two petitioners for being appointed vide letter dated 28th September 2018. Communication dated 29th September 2018 was issued to petitioners by MPSC communicating them recommendations of their names for appointment. However, since appointment orders were not being issued, one of the petitioners made representations dated 2nd July 2020 and 14th August 2020.
5. In the meantime, a committee was constituted by the office of Director General of Police to verify fulfillment of eligibility criteria by petitioners. The committee comprised of Additional Director General of Police, Special- Inspector General of Police (Motor Transport) and Deputy Inspector General- (Motor Transport). The committee submitted its report which was forwarded by the office of Director General of Police to the State Government on 17th February 2020. The committee recommended that none of the three selected candidates possessed eligibility criteria. After considering the report, the State Government convened to the Director General of Police by letter dated 10th September 2020 that the three selected candidates do not possess the requisite experience and therefore they were declared ineligible. Accordingly, by communication dated 8th October 2020 all the three selected candidates (including petitioners) were communicated decision of the State Government not to appoint them on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police (Motor Transport).
6. Petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 173 of 2021 (Mayur Arun Tapase) and Original Application No.174 of 2022 (Ramanand Moreshwar Kalaskar) challenging letters dated 10th September 2020 and 8th October 2020 and seeking appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police (Motor Transport). By the impugned judgment and order dated 6th June 2022, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Original Applications.
7. Appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.8852 of 2022, Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Applications. That the eligibility of petitioners was verified by MPSC before permitting them to participate in the selection process. That recommendati
