IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that recruitment advertisements must be interpreted according to their explicit terms, and candidates are bound by the conditions set forth therein, particularly regarding the submission of applications.

JUDGMENT

Jitendra Jain, J. - These two Writ Petitions are transferred from Nagpur Bench of this Court to the Principal Seat since the Principal Seat was seized of similar matters arising out of the Full Bench decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal') dated 17th March 2023 in Original Application No.144 of 2022 (Amit Harishchandra Daphal Vs. Superintendent of Police & Anr) with connected matters.

2. We have decided Writ Petition No.7650 of 2023 (Ashok Mallinath Halsangi & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) with connected Writ Petitions today. However, the Counsel for the present Petitioners contended that the facts of their case are different than the facts of the other group of Petitioners and therefore they should be heard separately. It is on this backdrop that we have de-tagged the present Writ Petitions from the other group and heard them separately.

3. The Petitioners are seeking to challenge the order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal dated 17th March 2023 with a further prayer that their appointment should not be cancelled on the basis of the said Full Bench decision of the Tribunal.

4. For the purpose of the adjudication, we would narrate the facts of Writ Petition No.13079 of 2023.Brief Facts:

5. On 30th November 2019, the Respondents published an advertisement for the post of 'Police Constable Driver'. The Petitioners applied for the said post by making more than one application in more than one district. The Petitioners cleared the written examination and also cleared the physical test. The Petitioners names were shown in the merit list and were also given appointment letters. Meanwhile, a communication dated 29th October 2021 was issued by Respondent No.2 cancelling the appointments of those candidates who were found to have made more than one application for the same post in more than one unit. The said communication was challenged by the Petitioners before the Tribunal at Nagpur by filing Original Application Nos.309 and 325 of 2022. The Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications filed by the Petitioners on 31st March 2022 and pursuant thereto the Petitioners came to be appointed for the post. Meanwhile, a Full Bench of the Tribunal was constituted at Mumbai to adjudicate the issue of whether a candidate can make more than one application for the same post in various units. The Full Bench of the Tribunal after hearing all the parties came to the conclusion on 17th March 2023 that a candidate can make only one application for one post in one unit and if a candidate makes more than one application, being for different units then the same would be illegal. It is on this backdrop that the Petitioners are aggrieved since their appointments have been held to be illegal and therefore they are before us.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that on a conjoint reading of clauses 11.10 and 11.17 of the advertisement dated 30th November 2019, there is no prohibition for a candidate to make more than one application for the same post in various units. The Petitioners further submitted that the last sentence in clause 11.10 which prohibits more than one application for the same post in different units is contrary to the initial part of the said clause and furthermore the advertisement does not provide for any consequence if the candidate makes more than one application, being for different units for the same post. The Petitioners relied upon the definition of a 'police unit' as per Recruitment Rules of 2019. The Petitioners, in the alternative, submit that even in such a scenario the candidate should be considered at least for the first of the applications on a reading of clause 11.17 of the said advertisement. The Petitioners further submitted that they were not heard by the Full Bench and therefore the decision rendered by the Nagpur Bench in their case should not be reversed and that the decision of the Full Bench cannot be implemented against them. The Petitioners have a