Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ARUN R.PEDNEKER, VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV
Yogesh Balkrishna Sarkate – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Energy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners secured higher total scores under advertised marks (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. criteria change post-advertisement arbitrary and unfair (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. weightage claimed per ad for merit evaluation (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. advertisement lacks weightage provision; total marks govern (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. midway rule changes violate article 14 fairness (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. no discretion for post-test weightage application (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. select petitioners on total marks basis (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
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
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.
Changes to selection criteria post-application process must not violate advertised conditions; clarity in rules ensures fairness in recruitment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process must adhere to the terms of the advertisement and the prescribed rules, and any deviation from these norms is impermissi....
Amended Rules of 1962 mandate that interview marks in public examinations cannot exceed 10% of total marks to ensure fair and transparent selection processes, reaffirming principles of constitutional....
Recruitment criteria cannot be altered after the selection process begins, as it violates principles of fairness and predictability under public service law.
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 ....
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
