The submission of a character certificate is a relevant consideration, not a mandatory condition, and the competent authority must independently assess a candidate's suitability for the position based on character and antecedents.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit B. Deo, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is assailing the judgment dated 17-7-2018 rendered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application 839/2017 whereby the MAT allowed the Original Application in terms of prayer clauses 8(i) and (ii) and quashed the appointment of the petitioner as Police Patil of Village Gondeda.

3. In the interest of clarity, we extract prayer clauses 8(i) and (ii) of the Original Application preferred by Mr. Vishnudas Mangare - respondent 3 herein.

“(i) Pass an appropriate order thereby declared that acceptance of an application of respondent No.3 for post of Police Patil, which was filed without submit and annexed character certificate was illegal.

(ii) Pass an appropriate order thereby declaring that an application submitted by respondent No.3 was not eligible and was accepted by breach of mandatory conditions as well as respondent No.2 did not follow principle of equality and has wrongly accepted the same.”

4. The petitioner and Mr. Vishnudas Mangare were desirous of holding the post of Police Patil and responded to the recruitment advertisement, along with others.

5. The petitioner emerged successful in the recruitment process and was appointed as Police Patil vide order dated 04-3-2016 (Annexure-F). It appears that on 09-10-2017 Mr. Vishnudas Mangare questioned the petitioner’s appointment in Original Application 839/2017, which is allowed by the order impugned as noted supra. The appointment of the petitioner as Police Patil is held illegal on the premise that since the petitioner did not submit the character certificate along with the application, he was ineligible to participate in the recruitment process.

6. The MAT noted the admission of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chimur that the petitioner herein did submit the character certificate on 30-3-2016. It is further admitted that the petitioner secured more marks than Mr. Vishnudas Mangare.

7. The petitioner contended that while he did apply for the character certificate within time, he could not meet the deadline of 15-2-2016 since the character certificate was issued by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur on 18-2-2016.

8. The MAT observed that there is no reason why the petitioner was allowed to participate in the process. The MAT then noted the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of the MAT in Original Application 789/2016. Referring to the said decision of the Coordinate Bench, the MAT observed that in that matter the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the cancellation of the appointment order on the ground of failure to submit the character certificate, is legal. On the premise that the case of respondent 3-Mr. Vishnudas Mangare is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the MAT allowed the application and quashed the petitioner’s appointment.

9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.M. Bahirwar, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Mr. S.M. Ukey and the learned Counsel for respondent 3 Mr. B.W. Patil.

10. We are of the considered view that the judgment of MAT is erroneous and unsustainable in law. We may briefly spell out the reasons.

11. The service conditions of Police Patils are governed by the Maharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968 (Order) which is made by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 (Act of 1967). Clause-3 of the Order prescribes eligibility conditions and reads thus :

“3. Eligibility for appointment.

(1) No person shall be eligible for being appointed as a Police Patil, who -

(a) is under twenty-five years or over forty five years of age at the time of appointment;

(b) has not passed the VI standard examination in a primary school or who does not possess equivalent or higher educational quali