Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. MEHARE, SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ
Sharad S/o.shriram Salunke – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the litigating sides finally at the admission stage.
2. Both petitions raise common questions of facts and law pertain to self-same selection process. Hence, they are decided by common judgment.
3. Intervenors have filed Civil Applications and they are also permitted to address the Court. The marks of the candidates who participated in the selection process are received in sealed envelope on the earlier occasion and today also.
4. These matters pertain to the selection process of 50 Managing Directors to be empanelled by the respondents. The process is regulated by Government Resolution dated 18.04.2022. The petitioners before the Court are aspirants from the open market. It is necessary to clarify that few candidates who were denied opportunity to appear for objective screening test had filed petitions before the Principal Seat and those were dismissed. Being aggrieved, in all 28 candidates had filed Special Leave Appeal No. 8750-8754 of 2023 before Hon’ble Supreme Court on or around 21.04.2023. Interim orders were passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 28.04.2023 permitting them to appear for examination
The introduction of a minimum marks benchmark in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not cause prejudice to candidates.
Introduction of new benchmarks in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not prejudice candidates, despite the general principle against changing rules mid-proces....
Introduction of new benchmarks in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not prejudice candidates.
Minimum qualifying marks must be obtained in each subject rather than an aggregate score; changes to recruitment criteria cannot be made after the process has commenced.
(1) Appointment of District Judges – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruit....
Recruitment criteria cannot be altered after the selection process begins, as it violates principles of fairness and predictability under public service law.
The court reaffirmed that qualifying and shortlisting criteria can be distinct, allowing administrative discretion in recruitment processes as long as they are transparently and reasonably applied.
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
