Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. MEHARE, SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Nitin Ramesh Rathod - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 11840 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1011 OF 2025, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2261 OF 2025
Decided on : 17-03-2025
For the Appellant :Shri Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P.
For the Respondent:Shri R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate a/w Shri P. S. Dighe and Shri V. D. Khivesara, Advocates
Conditions awarding weightage to GATE scores in recruitment were unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution due to discrimination and lack of reasonable nexus.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Recruitment process - Challenge to conditions awarding 10% weightage to GATE score in recruitment advertisement - Conditions found unconstitutional as they create discrimination and lack reasonable nexus - Previous advertisements did not include such conditions - Fresh merit list to be prepared excluding GATE weightage. (Paras 6, 10, 37)
(B) Recruitment Regulations 2005 - No amendment made to incorporate GATE weightage - Conditions not supported by statutory provisions - Legal sanctity of criteria questioned. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the conditions in the recruitment advertisement for Graduate Engineer Trainee posts, specifically the 10% weightage to GATE scores, arguing it was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The conditions were modified in a corrigendum but still included the GATE weightage. (Paras 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the conditions unconstitutional, emphasizing that the weightage to GATE scores was arbitrary and discriminatory, and ordered the preparation of a fresh merit list without the GATE weightage. (Paras 37)
Issues: The main issues included the constitutionality of the weightage given to GATE scores and the entertainability of the petition after participation in the selection process. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conditions imposed were unconstitutional as they violated Articles 14 and 16, creating an unreasonable classification and discrimination among candidates. (Paras 26, 37)
Result: Conditions quashed; fresh merit list to be prepared excluding GATE weightage.
JUDGMENT :
Shailesh P. Brahme, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties heard both sides finally at the admission stage.
2. Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging advertisement No. 07/2023 dated 29.12.2023 and corrigendum dated 30.01.2024 especially condition of awarding 10% weightage to the Graduation Aptitude Test in Engineering (for short ‘GATE’) score.
3. Petitioners are aspirants for the post of Graduate Engineering – Trainee (Distribution). The respondent No. 2/Company hereinafter referred as to the MSEDCL floated advertisement for recruitment of 281 posts of Graduate Engineer – Trainee (Distribution) along with 40 posts of Graduate Engineer – Trainee (Civil) vide advertisement dated 29.12.2023. The terms and conditions appended to advertisement stipulated.
Condition Nos. 6.1 and 6.7 are as follows :
6.1 The candidates who have appeared for GATE examination in the last three years i.e. GATE-2021, GATE-2022 & GATE-2023 will be considered eligible for applying.
6.7 The candidates will be selected based on the score obtained in the GATE exam.
Petitioners and other candidates, who did not qualify GATE or did not appear for the same for preceding three years objected to the above clauses. Resultantly, corrigendum was issued on 30.01.2024 modifying the relevant conditions, which are as follows :
6.1 The candidates will be selected on the basis of performance in the online test and valid GATE score obtained in the last three years i.e. GATE-2021, GATE-2022 & GATE-2023 by giving 90% weightage to the online test & 10%weightage to the GATE score.
6.2 If candidates want to take benefit of 10%weightage of GATE score, candidates must have qualified in the GATE examination from one of the following disciplines :
i. Electrical Engineering (GATE code :EE)
ii. Civil Engineering (GATE code : CE)
6.4 The candidates do not possessing GATE score will also be eligible to apply. All candidates will have to appear for online test.
Thus, candidates, who were not possessing GATE score were also made eligible for the selection. Petitioners applied for the post in question. Last date for submitting application was extended upto 16.08.2024.
4. The respondent/MSEDCL conducted examination on 24.10.2024. Before appearing for the examination, petitioners approached this Court on 16.10.2024 by filing present petition. The results were declared on 16.01.2025. The verification of documents was done on 23.01.2025. A final select list is prepared, but due to the interim orders, appointment orders are not issued.
5. Petitioners are challenging condition of giving weightage of 10% to the candidates having GATE score. Following submissions are advanced by Mr. Syed Tauseef, learned advocate for the petitioners :
I Condition Nos. 6.1 and 6.7 of the advertisement and condition Nos. 6.1 and 6.2 of the corrigendum are unconstitutional, unreasonable and against the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
II The above conditions are extraneous and besides classification and Recruitment Regulations 2005 (for short ‘Regulation 2005).
III No relative amendment is made to the regulation of 2005 to introduce any preference or weightage to the GATE score, though the respondent/MSEDCL passed some correction slip or resolution on 30.01.2021.
IV The score and the clearance in the GATE is meant for altogether different purpose and there is no reasonable nexus for awarding 10% weightage for the GATE score.
V Petitioners are discriminated and impugned conditions would amount to creation of class in class itself, which is impermissible.
VI There is no hurdle of principle of estoppel for the petitioners as they are neither unsuccessful candidates, nor approaching belatedly. The conditions under challenge are unconstitutional.
VII Previously in advertisement No. 06/2019 and 01/2020 no such condition was incorporated.
6. Reliance is placed on following judgments of the Supreme Court by t
