Selection criteria cannot be changed post-tests by applying 50% weightage if unspecified in advertisement; violates Article 14 by arbitrary midway alteration of merit evaluation.

JUDGMENT :

VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By this Petition, the petitioners are seeking selection and appointment on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement No.01/2023, issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners further challenge the selection process under Advertisement No.01/2023 in view of change in the condition of Selection Process after the Advertisement from selection on the basis of ‘SCORE OBTAINED’ to ‘WEIGHTAGE’, which in turn resulted in selection of those who scored less than the petitioners, thus violating their right to seek appointment under the advertisement.

Facts giving rise to the present writ petition can be briefly stated as under : -

3. Respondent No.2 – Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. published Advertisement No.01/2023 for the post of Junior Officer (Security) and Junior Officer (Security) (Departmental “Watchman” candidates) in Pay Group III in February 2023. As per the said advertisement, the selection process consisted of an Online Test followed by Physical Efficiency Test and Psychometric Test. The entire examination process was to be evaluated on a score basis wherein, 120 marks were allotted for Online examination and 40 marks were allotted for Physical Efficiency Test and Psychometric Test. Three posts were reserved for EWS Category and 14 posts were to be filled from the Open category. Petitioner No.1 applied under EWS category and petitioner No.2 applied under the open category for the advertised post.

4. Petitioner No.1 secured 96 marks in online examination and 37 marks in Physical Efficiency Test and Psychometric Test, thereby securing a total of 133 marks, and appeared in merit list of the open category. Petitioner No.2 secured 74 marks in Online examination and 34 marks in Physical Efficiency Test and Psychometric Test, thereby securing a total of 108 marks, and appeared in merit list of the open category. Petitioner No.1 was shortlisted at serial No.20 and petitioner No.2 at Serial No.21 in the Open category.

5. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 published the select list on the basis of weightage given to the scores obtained in online examination by applying 50% weightage and 50% weightage was given to the Physical Efficiency Test and Psychometric Test. Thus, application of 50% weightage to the two different tests created change in the merit position and the petitioners were placed on the wait list, whereas, Respondent Nos.4 to 7 were selected. The following comparative chart would indicate the position.

6. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are selected over the petitioners, although they had scored less total marks than the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners made various representations to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider that their selection process is illegal and against the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. However, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to correct the select list. As such, the present writ petition is filed challenging the selection process and seeking a direction to appoint the petitioners, as they have secured higher marks and are more meritorious.

7. Learned Counsel Shri. P. P. Shahane submitted that the primary challenge in the petition is that the recruitment process ought to have been completed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions as stipulated in the advertisement No.1/2023 and the existing rules. It is al