Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
S.G. MEHARE, SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Sharad S/o Shriram Salunke - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 7267, 8489 of 2024, Civil Application Nos. 8430, 10721 of 2024
Decided On : 07-02-2025
(A) Government Resolution dated 18.04.2022 - Selection process for Managing Directors - Introduction of minimum benchmark of 27 out of 75 marks for qualifying oral examination after commencement of selection process deemed permissible - Petitioners challenged the introduction of new criterion as arbitrary and against established norms. (Paras 10, 20, 34, 48)
(B) Legal principle - Rules of the game cannot be changed after the commencement of the game - However, introduction of new benchmarks is permissible if justified by larger public interest and no prejudice is caused to candidates. (Paras 19, 48)
Facts of the case:
The selection process for 50 Managing Directors was challenged by candidates who were not shortlisted for interviews due to the introduction of a new benchmark after the screening test. They argued that this change was arbitrary and violated the original selection criteria.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the introduction of the benchmark was permissible and did not violate any established rules, as it aimed to ensure the selection of the best candidates.
Issues: Whether it is permissible to introduce new benchmarks after the commencement of the selection process and whether the petitioners were prejudiced by this change.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the rules of selection should not change mid-process, the introduction of a benchmark can be justified if it serves a legitimate purpose and does not disadvantage candidates.
Result: Both petitions are dismissed.
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 to be held on 04.05.2023. It is informed that those matters are still pending before the Apex Court.
5. It is informed that in pursuance of orders of Supreme Court, candidates were permitted to appear for examination held on 04.05.2023. They did not qualify written/mains and therefore they are not figuring in the subsequent round of selections. The lawyers on both sides submitted that present petitions can be considered for final hearing. We find that the pendency of the petitions before the Hon’ble Apex Court is not an impediment in deciding the present petitions. There is no prohibitory order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Under these circumstances, we propose to decide these petitions.
6. The respondent no. 1 had issued Government Resolution dated 18.04.2022 laying down modalities for selecting 50 candidates for the post of Managing Director. By notification dated 31.05.2022, advertisement was issued calling applications from aspiring candidates. It was stipulated that objective screening test of 200 marks would be conducted. Those who score more than 70 marks would be eligible for the written examination/mains (hereinafter referred in short as ‘written/Mains’). In written/mains, the candidates would be shortlisted for oral on the basis of merits in ratio of 1:3 . After considering the marks for written/Mains and the Oral, first 50 candidates would be selected for the post in question.
7. The objective screening test was conducted on 05.04.2023. In all 294 candidates had applied for it and 264 candidates had actually appeared for the examination. The list of 239 candidates scoring above 70 marks was shortlisted, to be eligible for written/Mains. No results of the candidates shortlisted for last stage/Oral were declared.
8. A circular was issued on 17.04.2023 in an interregnum between objective screening test and written/mains held on 04.05.2023, setting out bench mark of minimum 27 marks in the written/mains out of 75 marks to be eligible for orals. On the same date, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the respondent no.3 issuing the instructions for conducting written/mains. It was conducted on 04.05.2023. The results of mains were still not declared.
9. A list of 74 candidates who were found eligible for oral was published. Interviews were conducted in between 18.07.2024 to 22.07.2024. They appeared for the interview. The petitioners did not figure in the list of 74 candidates appeared for the interview meaning thereby they were not shortlisted. Therefore, they are approaching this Court for directions to modify the list of the candidates declared to be eligible for interview by including them in the list and to declare the result of Mains. They are also seeking interim orders.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. More appearing for petitioners
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.
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.
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.
Retrospective fixation of minimum qualifying marks after exam result declaration changes rules of game impermissibly; candidates in initial combined merit list entitled to consideration without such ....
(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
