Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Sandeep V.Marne, JJ.
Vijay Babarao Shende - Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Public Service Commission - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2891 of 2021
Decided On : 11-07-2023
SELECTION PROCESS - Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure 2014 - Rule 9 - The court discussed the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure 2014, particularly Rule 9, which governs the shortlisting of candidates for interviews. The court interpreted the provisions allowing for the arrangement of candidates based on experience and the criteria for shortlisting, concluding that the MPSC acted within its authority. The court emphasized that the selection process was transparent and adhered to the established rules, which influenced its decision to uphold the Tribunal's dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, challenged the MPSC's selection process for the Deputy Director, Town Planning position, claiming he was wrongly excluded from the shortlist despite meeting eligibility criteria. The MPSC had advertised two posts, one reserved for Scheduled Caste and one for Female Open category, and shortlisted candidates based on experience, leading to the petitioner's exclusion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MPSC correctly applied the shortlisting criteria as per Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure 2014. The petitioner had the least experience among eligible candidates for the Scheduled Caste category and was rightly excluded from the interview process. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings and noted that the selection process was conducted transparently.
Issues: Whether the MPSC's shortlisting criteria were applied correctly and whether the petitioner was entitled to be included in the shortlist for the Deputy Director position reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MPSC's application of shortlisting criteria based on experience was valid and that the petitioner, having the least experience among eligible candidates, was rightly excluded. The court also clarified the legal position regarding migration of candidates between categories, affirming that the selection process adhered to the established legal framework.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's order and ruling that the MPSC's actions were lawful and justified.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
SANDEEP V.MARNE, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties finally.
2. By this Petition, Petitioner challenges judgment and order dated June 24, 2021 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal), dismissing Original Application No.544 of 2018. The Original Application was filed by Petitioner challenging selection process for appointment to the post of Deputy Director, Town Planning initiated in pursuance of the Advertisement no.15/2018. Petitioner had prayed for declaration as to his eligibility and for his consideration in the selection process.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He was initially appointed as Assistant Town Planner on November 11, 1993. He was later appointed on the post of Town Planner through competitive examination conducted by Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) with effect from July 13, 2010. He further participated in the competitive examination for appointment as Assistant Director, Town Planning conducted by MPSC and came to be selected and appointed on that post with effect from March 6, 2014.
4. MPSC issued advertisement no.15/2018 on February 6, 2018 for filling of two posts of Deputy Director, Town Planning, Group-I, Gazetted, Urban Development Department. Out of the two posts, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste category whereas the second post was reserved horizontally for Female-Open category. The advertisement specified educational criteria of Master's Degree in Town Planning or Post Graduate Diploma in Urban Planning. The advertisement also prescribed experience of not less than five years in Town Planning or Town Planning and Valuation of Lands and Buildings in a post not below the rank of Town Planner or equivalent post in government or semigovernment organization. There is no dispute to the position that Petitioner possesses the requisite eligibility criteria to participate in the selection process. Petitioner accordingly submitted online application on May 22, 2018 in pursuance of the advertisement.
5. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure 2014 provide for short listing of candidates for interviews. Applying the short-listing criteria, MPSC published list of eligible candidates and noneligible candidates on June 12, 2018 and scheduled the interviews to be held on June 27, 2018. The Commission arranged the candidates in descending order depending on experience possessed by each candidate. In Female Open category, only one candidate namely Ms. Snehalata Vasantrao Rane was possessing requisite experience of five years, MPSC therefore shortlisted Ms. Rane and three other male candidates belonging to Open category in respect of one vacancy reserved for Open Female category. For the other post reserved in Scheduled Caste category, four candidates were selected. Petitioner was not included in the list of shortlisted candidates as he was at serial no.5 having the least experience amongst SC candidates and accordingly, only four candidates were shortlisted for interview.
6. Petitioner made representation dated June 13, 2018 challenging non-inclusion of his name in shortlisted candidates. He filed Original Application No.544 of 2018 before the Tribunal challenging the selection process. He also prayed for grant of interim order to permit him to participate in the selection process. The Tribunal passed interim order dated June 20, 2018, directing that Petitioner be called for interview and his result was directed to be kept in sealed cover. Petitioner accordingly received two letters, dated June 12, 2018 and June 22, 2018 calling him for interview scheduled to be held on June 27, 2018. Petitioner accordingly participated in the interview process.
7. The State Government thereafter issued Corrigendum dated December 19, 2018 modifying instructions regarding filling up of posts in horizontal reservation. It was directed
The court established that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission has the authority to apply shortlisting criteria based on experience, and candidates from reserved categories may only migrate to ....
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.
Candidates from reserved categories can claim horizontal reservations in open categories based on merit unless explicitly prohibited by law or policy.
Reservation policies in public employment must prioritize merit; candidates from reserved categories who qualify for general positions based on merit are to be treated as general category candidates.
Merit must govern the selection of candidates across categories, allowing migration from reserved to open categories based on superior performance.
The court clarified the distinction between horizontal and vertical reservations and ruled that candidates applying from the open category cannot be denied placement based solely on their reserved ca....
Categorization of candidates based on reserved categories during the selection process compromises merit and violates the rule of reservation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
