IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Ashwini Sanjay Kale and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2728 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2024
AGE RELAXATION - JUDICIAL SERVICE - Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules of 2008 - Rule 5(3)(c)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a communication informing them that they cannot be considered for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (CJJD and JMFC) due to being overage and not belonging to backward classes or seeking relaxation based on Economically Weaker Section (EWS) status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not eligible for age relaxation as they belonged to the EWS, not backward classes, and their application under the SEBC Act, which was struck down, could not be considered. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments based on promissory estoppel, government resolutions, and previous case laws.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to age relaxation for the CJJD and JMFC posts based on their EWS status and the impact of the SEBC Act being struck down.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that candidates belonging to economically weaker sections cannot be considered as candidates belonging to backward classes. It also emphasized the distinction between economically weaker sections and backward class of citizens as recognized by the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners were not justified in seeking appointment for the CJJD and JMFC posts due to being overage as per the 2008 Rules.
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Jain, J.
Rule. Mr. Walimbe, learned Additional Government Pleader waives service of notice for respondent no.1-State. Mr.Sathe, learned Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2-High Court. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the communication dated 31st January 2022 whereby the petitioners have been informed that they cannot be considered for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (CJJD and JMFC) since on the date of the advertisement they are overage and further they cannot seek relaxation of the age on the ground that they belong to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and not backward class.
Narrative of Events :-
3. On 1st February 2019, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued an advertisement for the post of CJJD and JMFC. As per Clause 7 of the said advertisement, age limit for advocate on the date of publication of advertisement should not be less than 21 years and not more than 35 years in the case of Advocate, with 3 years practice. In the case of fresh law graduate, age should not be less than 21 years and not more than 25 years. As per Clause 7.5 of the said advertisement, if the candidate belongs to backward class, then the age would be relaxed by 5 years, that means in case of an advocate, the outer age would be 40 years and in case of fresh law graduate, the outer age would be 30 years.
4. On 12th February 2019, respondent no.1-State issued a Government Resolution granting 10% reservation in Government Services for the candidates belonging to EWS.
5. On 30th November 2018, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 (‘SEBC Act’) was passed. As per Section 4(b) of the SEBC Act, 16% reservation was granted to the candidates belonging to SEBC and the Maratha Community was notified as backward community for the purpose of the said Act. The vires of the SEBC Act was challenged before this Court and the same was upheld on 27th June 2019. The order of the High Court was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on 9th September 2020 referred the matter to the Larger Bench. However, the Supreme Court directed that post 9th September 2020, appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without implementing the reservation as provided in the said Act. However, the appointments made prior to 9th September 2020 were protected.
6. Pursuant to the above advertisement, on 30th October 2019, the petitioners applied under the backward category under the SEBC Act and appeared for main exam and successfully cleared the said exam. On 21st December 2019, the list of eligible candidates was published which included petitioner no.1 to petitioner no.4 and these petitioners were recommended by the MPSC on 2nd January 2020. On 25th February 2020, verification of original documents of the petitioners was conducted and on 6th July 2021, a notification of the appointment to the post of CJJD and JMFC was published but the names of the petitioners did not appear in the said notification. Meanwhile, on 21st May 2021, the Supreme Court quashed the SEBC Act in Civil Appeal No.2123 of 2020 in the case of Dr. Jaishri Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 8 SCC 323.
7. On 8th June 2021 and 19th January 2022, the petitioners made representations to respondent no.1. Meanwhile, on 5th July 2021, respondent no.1-State issued a Government Resolution to overcome the decision of the Supreme Court which had quashed the SEBC Act.
8. On 15th July 2021, respondent no.1 issued further Government Resolution directing to make appointments to public services and post in order to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court striking down SEBC Act. On 15th July 2021, a further G.R. was issued permitting conversion of SEBC into EWS. On 17th December 2021, the Government issued G.R. granting one more chan
Ashish Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 55
Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India
Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Kushewar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2007) 11 SCC 447
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur
The court established that amendments to recruitment rules are prospective and do not affect ongoing selection processes unless explicitly stated.
Point of law: Schedule III of the Rules of 2010 prescribes specific time schedule for determination and notification of the actual number of existing and expected vacancies in each cadre as also for ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government had already increased the maximum upper age limit by two years and the concession granted by the Supreme Court in a similar cas....
Belated minor age shortfall objection invalid after judicially sanctioned appointment list inclusion; statutory relaxation warranted to prevent hardship.
The relaxation of the upper age limit for government jobs is at the discretion of the State/Government and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by candidates of the EWS category.
Where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as last date for filing applications, eligibility of candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone....
Point of Law : Permanent disability - Appointment - It is true that it is not necessary to frame separate set of rules for providing reservation in appointments of persons other than District Judges ....
A candidate from a reserved category must meet unreserved eligibility criteria without claiming age relaxation when applying for unreserved posts unless expressly provided by recruitment rules or adv....
The entitlement to appointments based on wait list positions and the application of age relaxation and policy circulars in determining eligibility for appointments.
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.