IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NITIN JAMDAR, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Akshay Ashok Chaudhari – Petitioner
Versus
Government of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 2722, 2859, 2861, 2862, 2891, 5521, 5614 of 2023, Interim Application Nos. 2427, 13079, 14323, 25732 of 2023, Writ Petition Stamp No. 11330 of 2023
Decided On : 22-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
NITIN JAMDAR, J.
1. Rule in all the Petitions. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal as per the earlier order.
2. In the year 2018, the State of Maharashtra enacted the “Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Class Act, 2018” (SEBC Act), which came into force on 30 November 2018. This legislation conferred a right on the individuals from the Maratha community, SEBC category, to 13% of total admissions in educational institutions and 16% of total appointments in direct recruitment for public services and posts within the State. The constitutional validity of the SEBC Act was challenged in this Court. After this Court upheld the validity, the challenge was taken further to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially granted an interim order and then declared the SEBC Act to be unconstitutional. The State of Maharashtra issued Government Resolutions (GRs), regarding candidates who had applied under the SEBC category in the recruitment process for filling up public posts. These candidates were permitted to apply in the Economically Weaker Section category (EWS) for the process of recruitment of various posts advertised in the year 2019. The GRs and the actions taken by the State Government in this regard were challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by the candidates who had initially applied under the EWS category. The Tribunal upheld the challenge by the impugned order dated 2 February 2023. The Tribunal directed the State of Maharashtra to prepare a final list of the original EWS candidates along with further directions and disqualified the candidates who had initially applied under the SEBC category.
3. Challenging this order of the Tribunal dated 2 February 2023, the State of Maharashtra and the aggrieved SEBC candidates have brought these writ petitions before us. Intervention applications are filed. The Petitions and Applications are argued together as they arise from the common order passed by the Tribunal and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. In this judgment, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is referred to as the “Tribunal.” The Petitioner the State of Maharashtra, through its different departments, is referred to as the “State.” The original Applicants before the Tribunal who had applied from the Economically Weaker Section category are referred to as the “EWS candidates.” The Respondents before the Tribunal who belonged to the SEBC category and were permitted to apply in the EWS category are referred to as the “SEBC candidates.” We have described the candidates in this manner solely for convenience and because the Tribunal has referred to them as such. However, it should not be construed that we have made a distinction between these SEBC candidates and EWS candidates when addressing the broader issue-an error, as we will expound upon later, that the Tribunal has fallen into.
5. A total of eight petitions are before us. Writ Petition Nos. 2859 of 2023, 2862 of 2023 and 2862 of 2023 are filed by the State. The remaining petitions are filed by the SEBC candidates. Recruitment processes under three Advertisements were under challenge before the Tribunal. One for the posts of Sub-Inspector/Tax Assistant and Clerk-Typist. Second for the posts in the Forest Department. Third for the posts in the Engineering Services. These writ petitions can be grouped as per the Advertisements as under:
(i) WP No. 2862/2023 filed by the State.
(b) For the posts in the Forest Department:
(i) WP No. 2859/2023 filed by the State.
(ii) WP No. 2891/2023 filed by SEBC candidates.
(iii) WP No. 5521/2023 filed by SEBC candidates.
(c) For the posts in Engineering Services:
(i) WP No. 2861/2022 filed by the State.
(ii) WP No. 2722/2023 filed by SEBC candidates
(iii) WP (ST.) No. 11330/2023 fi
Ashwani Kumar Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Commission
Bishnu Biswas vs. Union of India
C. Channabasavaih vs. State of Mysore
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. Chief Minister and Others
Durgacharan Misra vs. State of Orissa
Gaurav Pradhan vs. State of Rajasthan
Gopal Krushna Rath vs. M.A.A. Baig
Gregory Patrao vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi
Hardev Singh vs. Union of India
Herrington vs. British Rlys. Board
Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 (HL)
Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta
Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India
Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala
K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841
K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala
London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. vs. Horton
Maharashtra SRTC vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve
Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University
M.P. Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar
M.S. Raj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Madan Mohan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan
Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation) vs. Union of India
N.T. Devin Katti vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission
P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka
Prakash Chand Meena vs. State of Rajasthan
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer vs. Union of India
Pitta Naveen Kumar vs. Narasaiah Zangiti
Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi
Rakhi Ray vs. High Court of Delhi
Ram Sharma Maurya vs. State of U.P. (2021) 15 SCC 401
State of Bihar vs. Mithilesh Kumar
State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Shyam Sunder
State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha
Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court
Union of India vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty
Umrao Singh vs. Punjabi University
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 necessa....
Reserved category candidates who score above the general category cut-off must be treated as general candidates, ensuring merit prevails in recruitment processes as mandated by the Constitution.
10% EWS reservation applies only to current vacancies, excluding backlog SC/ST/OBC vacancies treated as separate class under Article 16(4B), not total vacancies.
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
Retrospective fixation of minimum qualifying marks after exam result declaration changes rules of game impermissibly; candidates in initial combined merit list entitled to consideration without such ....
Tainted candidates are barred from participating in the recruitment process according to the Supreme Court's directives on fraudulent appointments and adherence to prior recruitment rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.