SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1463

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M.D. Lonkar, Om M. Lonkar, Tejas D. Deshmukh, Anshuman Deshmukh, S.S. Mohanty, V.A. Thorat, Mihir Desai, Laukik Pawar, Satyajeet Rajshirke, Nikhil Pawar, Sandeep Dere, Narendra Bandiwadekar, Sachin Kadam, Sangharsh V. Waghmare, Rahul Salve, Santosh Shingare.
For the Respondents: Birendra Saraf, P.P. Kakade, M.M. Pable, Sayyed T. Yassen, Saurav N. Katkar, Shantanu Raktate, Sabiha Ansari, Aisha Shaikh, Tanvi Rane, Shraddha Khandare.

The court ruled that expanding the candidate pool does not infringe on rights if eligibility criteria remain unchanged, emphasizing the need for fairness in recruitment processes.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Class Act, 2018 - Constitutional validity - SEBC Act declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - State directed to allow candidates to apply under EWS category - GR dated 23.12.2020 quashed as illegal - Reservation policies must adhere to constitutional provisions ensuring fairness. (Paras 15, 21, 59, 100)

(B) Recruitment Process - Changes in rules during selection - The principle that rules of the game cannot be changed mid-process - However, if eligibility criteria remain unchanged, expanding candidate pool does not infringe on rights. (Paras 60, 70, 96)

Facts of the case:
The State of Maharashtra enacted SEBC Act, providing reservations for Maratha community; challenged in court and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, leading to a legal dispute regarding the eligibility of candidates previously applying under SEBC to now apply under EWS.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal’s decision to quash the GR was unwarranted; the rules of recruitment were not fundamentally altered, and candidates were not disadvantaged by the inclusion of SEBC candidates in the EWS category.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in declaring the GR illegal and whether the rules of recruitment were altered to the detriment of the candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while rules of recruitment should not change mid-process, the expansion of the candidate pool to include SEBC candidates did not violate the rights of EWS candidates if the eligibility criteria remained constant.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; the impugned judgment of the Tribunal quashed. Parties involved: State of Maharashtra, SEBC candidates, EWS candidates. Dissenting opinions: None noted.

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:

    (a) For the post of Tax Assistant and Clerk-Typist:

(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

                                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                  1
                                  2
                                  3
                                  4
                                  5
                                  6
                                  7
                                  8
                                  9
                                  10
                                  11
                                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                  supreme today icon
                                  logo-black

                                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                  Please visit our Training & Support
                                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                  qr

                                  Scan Me!

                                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                  whatsapp-icon Back to top