- Court
- High Court of Bombay
- Decided
- 20 March 2024
- Bench
- A.S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Shantilal Jain
- Case no.
- WP 16025/2022
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16025 OF 2022
¶1Shri. Dattatray Maruti Bansude,
¶2Shriram Aabaji Patil,
¶3Hanmant Narshing Tamke,
¶4Shambhuraj Shantaram Jadhav,
¶5Tatyasaheb Prakash Ballal,
¶6Rahul Balasaheb Lokhande,
¶7Ashish Gajananrao Barlawar,
¶8Suhas Babasaheb Batule,
¶9Pravin Ramesh Sathe,
¶10Santosh Vitthalrao Mahajan,
¶11Jitendra Dattatray Pawar,
¶12Hemant Shantaram Behare,
¶13Amit Ankush Kedari,
¶14Amol B. Deshmukh,
¶15Ganesh Atmaram Payghan,
¶16Vinayak Hanmant Shinde,
¶17Bipin Dadarao Wadaskar,
¶18Nilesh Shivaji Thakre,
¶19Gajanan Tatyaba Aarekar,
¶20Narendra Abhiman Pawar,
¶21Tushar Hanmantrao Salunkhe,
¶22Dipak Shivmurti Kolhe,
¶23Pramod Dattatraya Ugale,
¶24Sachin Haribhau Desale, 1 of 65 TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2024.04.03 12:06:53 +0530
¶25Sandip Vaman Shinde,
¶26Sachin Shankar Chile,
¶27Navnath Shankar Kadam,
¶28Bhanudas Genba Chandgude,
¶29Ranjeet Santosh Bhosale,
¶30Manish S. Chaturvedi,
¶31Bhagawant Mohan Wagh,
¶32Shrikant Chandrakant Gaikwad,
¶33Ashwin Shivlochan Mishra,
¶34Chandrashekhar Y. Raghort,
¶35Hemant Namdeorao Mundarale,
¶36Suresh Anandaro Dadas,
¶37Kiran Laxman Mane,
¶38Santosh Narayan Saka,
¶39Ravindra Vishwanath Munde,
¶40Shivaji Shankar Gore,
¶41Mahavir Dilip Kute,
¶42Somnath Sahdev Mandlik,
¶43Sanjaykumar Pandit Rathod,
¶44Vijay Nayabrao Ingle,
¶45Ananta Sahebrao Jawale,
¶46Devendra Dagadu Vende,
¶47Santosh Manik Sangle,
¶48Shakil Mahamadhanif Shaikh,
¶49Ganesh Namdev Bambarse,
¶50Rahul Sarjerao Gaikwad,
¶51Sandip Haribhau Jadhav, 2 of 65
¶52Rajendra Arjuna Patil,
¶53Sumit Bhimrao Surjuse,
¶54Dattatray Manohar Pawar,
¶55Rayshing Kishansing Chavan,
¶56Pradeep Ramesh Nannavare,
¶57Sudhakar Shivaji Shendge,
¶58Manoj Ashok Patil,
¶59Pandurang Bhimrao Patil,
¶60Shahid Rafiq Shaikh,
¶61Shripad Vilasrao Chavan,
¶62Madhav Balaji Jayebhaye,
¶63Pritesh Dagadu Chaudhari,
¶64Jagdish Shamrao Mandale,
¶65Navedali Shahadatali Saiyyad,
¶66Sandip Damodar Ghuge,
¶67Rahul Vishwanath Mali,
¶68Nitin Sadashivrao Kamdi,
¶69Anuradha Vitthal Shinde,
¶70Prafull Sunil Supekar,
¶71Sachin Vasantrao Bawane,
¶72Sanjay Dinkar Badare,
¶73Shankar Bhanudas Sarje,
¶74Vinod Prakash Chavan,
¶75Sunil Marotrao Hulgunde,
¶76Vaijnath Parmeshwar Anantwar,
¶77Madhav Bapurao Gutte,
¶78Nikhil Pandurangrao Mahure, 3 of 65
¶79Hemant Ramesh Mahadik,
¶80Shailendra Surendrasingh Thakur,
¶81Krushna Nandu Pustode,
¶82Yuraj Shriram Sonule,
¶83Samadhan Balkrushna Tonde,
¶84Shivanand Nagnathrao Kangule,
¶85Dnyanoba Kishanrao Kawthekar,
¶86Jivanath Mahadev Dongare,
¶87Santosh Namdev Kudale,
¶88Mahammadmubin Shoukat Patait,
¶89Vaibhav Vikas Atre,
¶90Sunil Bhaskar Giri,
¶91Pravin Shivaji Jadhav,
¶92Subhash Ankush Shingate,
¶93Sharad Tukaram Patil,
¶94Nilesh Ankush Shendkar,
¶95Amol Rangrao Gund,
¶96Ashok Vasudeo Pisal,
¶97Nitin Vasantrao Gawande,
¶98Sandeep Suryavhan Manke,
¶99Sandeep Shivaji Tikande,
¶100Navanath Shivaji Devakate,
¶101Nikhil Jagannath Jadhav,
¶102Santosh Damodar Bhor,
¶103Vishal Ashok Thorat,
¶104Deepak Sahebrao Patil,
¶105Babaso Gulab Mulla, 4 of 65
¶106Prakash Bharamappa Pujari,
¶107Sanjay Uttamrao Mhaske,
¶108Rehan ajij Shaikh,
¶109Amol Jalindar Thorat,
¶110Kiran Dilip Patil,
¶111Kiran Vilas More,
¶112Tejab Raosaheb Rankhamb,
¶113Jagdish Shamrao Mandale,
¶114Santosh Dilip Hojage,
¶115Ganesh Sudhakarrao Shelke,
¶116Shankar Mohanrao Yabaji,
¶117Balaji Pandharinath Kadam,
¶118Manoj Hanmant Yadav,
¶119Dipak Babanrao Deshamukh,
¶120Ravindra Arjuna Patil,
¶121Dhanaji Dhondiram Patil,
¶122Narayan Shivaji Furade,
¶123Sachin Vilas Patil,
¶124Pramod Dilip Sawant,
¶125Satnam Singh Sukhwant Singh Nijjar,
¶126Vijay Bhagwan Mahajan,
¶127Amol Parasu Bamane,
¶128Shankar Bhaurao Mate,
¶129Ganapati (Ganesh) Annaraya Metkar,
¶130Naresh Vitthalrao Vairagal,
¶131Tanaji shivaji Tagad,
¶132Bhimrao Ganapatrao Pawar, 5 of 65
¶133Rajendra Janardhan Galave,
¶134Duryodhan Bhonde. …Petitioners Versus
¶1The State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
¶2The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
¶3The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
¶4The Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
¶5The Director General of Police, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400001.
¶6The Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, 5th, 7th and 7th Floor, Cooprej Telephone Exchange Bldg, Maharshi Karve Marg, Cooprej, Mumbai 400021.
¶7Manoj Raghunath Rathod, R/at. Ambedkar Road, Pahade Chawl, Nanded 423104.
¶8Hanumant Bhagwat Rakusale, R/at. Khadki (Khandobachi Wadi) Post. Devala, Ghat Sawli, Beed-431122.
¶9Ishwar Digambar Holambe, 6 of 65
R/at. Helamb, Parali Vaijanath, Beed.
¶10Dilip Shyam Rathod R/at. Lakshmi Bhavan Bldg., Room No. 28, Kala Chowky, Jakhariya Bandar Road, Mumbai 400033.
¶11Avinash Atmaram Achgekar, R/at. At Post. Honewadi, Tal. Aajra, Dist. Kolhapur – 416505 …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.3538 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.16025 OF 2022 Vishnukant Govind Waghmare & Ors ...Applicant/Respondent In The Matter Of:- Dattatray Maruti Bansude & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16443 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.16025 OF 2022 Manoj Rathod
...Applicant/Respondent In the matter of:- Dattatray Maruti Bansude & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.13970 OF 2022
¶1Sandip Bapu Fulpagare, 7 of 65
¶2Kashav Motiram Kakad,
¶3Ravindra Hilal Koli,
¶4Nilesh Ganpatrao Bideger,
¶5Ravindra Ramdas Gunjal. ...Petitioners Versus
¶1Manoj Raghunath Rathod,
¶2Hanumant Bhagwat Rakusale,
¶3Ishwar Digambar Holambe,
¶4Dilip Shyam Rathod,
¶5Avinash Atmaram Achgekar,
¶6The State of Maharashtra, Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
¶7The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
¶8The Director General of Police Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400001.
¶9Maharashtra Public Service Commission, 5th, 7th and 7th Floor, Cooprej Telephone Exchange Bldg., Maharshi Karve Marg, Cooprej, Mumbai 400021.
¶10The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
¶11The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Law & Judiciary Dept. 8 of 65
¶12Parvate Sandip Goraksha
¶13Gunvanta Hari Boinwad
¶14Mahesh Hanumant Pande
¶15Gopane Bhagwat Marutirao
¶16Rathod Santosh Bapurao
¶17Gaikwad Avinash Prakash
¶18Nemane Indrajit Shahaji
¶19Kapase Pravinkumar Jalindar
¶20Burange Sakharam Angad
¶21Taware Ramesh Tanaji
¶22Mali Vikas Uttam
¶23Tanaii Vyankatrao Patil
¶24Bhanudas Genba Chandgude
¶25Shaikh Mobeen Navaj
¶26Dadas Suresh Anandrao
¶27Mohite Bhaskar Baliram
¶28Anantkawalas Mahesh Dinkar
¶29Shinde Manesh Chandrakant
¶30Bhosle Ranjeet Santosh
¶31Shendge Hanumant Bhau
¶32Shinde Arun Vinayak
¶33Desai Uday Chandrakant
¶34Bandgar Amol Balasaheb
¶35Palve Ramhari Bhagwan
¶36Wasade Pankaj Suryabhanji
¶37Radye Mangesh Sitaram
¶38Nikhil Pandurang Mahure
¶39Dive Mangesh Tukaram
¶40Pisalkar Umesh Arvindrao
¶41Patil Sachin Vilas
¶42Ramesh Babulal Sapkal
¶43Patil Mandar Madhukar
¶44Abhijit Gorakh Kanse
¶45Rankhamb Tejab Raosaheb
¶46Bagadi Satish Ishwara
¶47Kolhe Dipak Shivmurti 9 of 65
¶48Surve Amit Bharat
¶49Bhabad Manohar Eknath
¶50Mane Rahul Dinkar
¶51Jadhao Vijay Panjabrao
¶52Giri Vishnu Gangadhar
¶53Pradip Nimba Chaudhari
¶54Dalvi Deepak Ramesh
¶55Pakhale Atul Balasaheb
¶56Seema Gorakhnath Bade
¶57Balasaheb Shivaji Khodve
¶58Sawant Rahul Krushna
¶59Dongare Jivnath Mahadev
¶60Rahul Vishwanath Mali
¶61Mehesare Shyam Ramesh
¶62Juabai Panditrao Dahiphale
¶63Ghodke Bappasaheb Santrao
¶64Tatyasaheb Prakash Ballal
¶65Kadam Navnath Shankar
¶66Gawade Hemraj Eknath
¶67Kanase Yuvraj Babasaheb
¶68Pavale Navanath Balaso
¶69Kattojwar Neelesh Gorakhrao
¶70Bharati Anil Kashinath
¶71Jadhao Santosh Babu
¶72Dongre Mayur Tukaram
¶73Sandip Laxman Patil
¶74Khan Imran Aslam
¶75Shaikh Akhtar Abdul Rheman
¶76Takbhate Nitin Dattatraya
¶77Padole Ashish Devidas
¶78Manikeri Vitthal Baburao
¶79Deshmukh Amol Bisan
¶80Kore Rahul Shivaji
¶81Mahajan Kiran Babarão
¶82Barlawar Ashishkumar Gajananrao
¶83Satpaise Kishor Parashram 10 of 65
¶84Sarkar Sushil Sunil
¶85Thombre Datta Ashok
¶86Shrikant Bhagwan Dahiphale
¶87Sandip Vaman Shinde
¶88Pankaj Uttamrao Ingle
¶89More Kiran Vilas
¶90Choudhari Ramesh Suryakant
¶91Pathan Chandkhan Sahebkhan
¶92Mohammad Waseem Shaikh Lukman
¶93Magdum Sanket Sanjay
¶94Jadhav Shambhurai Shantaram
¶95Pawar Vinod Bhaskar
¶96Patil Pandurang Bhimrao
¶97Kiran Vitthal Jagdale
¶98Tiwari Manojkumar Ramrasile
¶99Andhale Manish Bapurao
¶100Suraj Naresh Fadatade
¶101Salunkhe Tushar Hanmantrao
¶102Mundafale Hemant Namdeorao
¶103Murkute Kishor Pandurang
¶104Thakur Shailendra Surendra
¶105Laxmikant Dharma Dhondage
¶106Pawar Dipak Dnyandeo
¶107Sudhakar Gopal Wadikar
¶108Mate Shankar Bhaurao
¶109Karvekar Satej Krishnat
¶110Anpat Poonam Popat
¶111Mandle Jagdish Shamrao
¶112Pujari Prakash Bharamappa
¶113Patle Santosh Babulal
¶114Bawane Sachin Vasantarao
¶115Jadhav Pravin Shivaji
¶116Ashish Laxman Botake
¶117Muneshwar Kamlesh Shriram
¶118Jagtap Ganesh Satish
¶119Patule Tanaji Limbraj 11 of 65
¶120Siddheshwar Trimbak Gaikwad
¶121Kulkarni Anant Pandurang
¶122Meera Subhash Rokade
¶123Mohammad Majeed Ibrahim
¶124Gadhave Dadasaheb Nehalchand
¶125Lohar Mahadev Subhash
¶126Pustode Krushna Nandu
¶127Deshmukh Dipak Babanrao
¶128Bande Tanaji Machindranath
¶129Nadaf Saipansaheb
¶130Hawale Kiran Rajendra
¶131Kaspate Ganesh Shahaji
¶132Ashwini Dnyandeo Bhosale
¶133Anil Balu Nimbalkar
¶134Pingale Nagesh Shankarrao
¶135Dipak Hari Pachpor
¶136Hulgunde Sunil Maarotrao
¶137Shelke Ganesh Sudhakarrao
¶138M Daud Vahajjudin
¶139Mohare Dineshsing Hanumansing
¶140Nujjar Satnamsingh Sukwantsingh
¶141Abraham Ruby Daniel
¶142Mundhe Sunil Daulat
¶143Deore Dinesh Manik
¶144Vishal Sudhakarrao Mahalkar
¶145Sanap Sukhadeo Laxmanrao
¶146Shrikant Chandrakant Gaikwad
¶147Pramod Dattatrya Ugale
¶148Badare Sanjay Dinakar
¶149Furade Narayan Shivaji
¶150Devkar Umesh Mahadev
¶151Lakhakar Abhinand Rameshrao
¶152Shripad Vilasraochavan
¶153Ashwin Shivlochan Mishra
¶154Jadhav Devidas Arjun
¶155Chawhan Sandip Dilipsingh 12 of 65
¶156Sharma Gauri Rampal
¶157Gaikwad Rahul Sarierao
¶158Davhale Ashishkumar Arunkumar
¶159Deepak Dhang
¶160Rajendra Prakash Jadhao
¶161Nagargoje Vishnu Gangaram
¶162Kalbande Dattatraya Bhagwanrao
¶163Ashok Shankar Sawanji
¶164Salunkhe Sushilkumar Dnyandeo
¶165Rathod Atul Baliram
¶166Mahajan Santosh Vitthalrao
¶167Tembhe Santosh Jagannath
¶168Gaikwad Vishal Sadashiv
¶169Kargal Mahendra Tukaram
¶170Manish Jagannath Talewar
¶171Govekar Shailendra Kashinath
¶172Ganapati Annaraya Metakari
¶173Pakhale Nilesh Dnyaneshwar
¶174Ram Sunil Ariun
¶175Madhav Shivajirao Waghchaure
¶176Supekar Prafull Sunil
¶177Wadaskar Bipin Dadarao
¶178Choudhari Nagesh Suryakant
¶179Pathan Siraj Alimkhan
¶180Shaikh Ramu Sikandar
¶181Kangule Shivanand Nagnathrao
¶182Mahajan Vijay Bhagwan
¶183Rahul Balasaheb Bhagwat
¶184Kudale Santosh Namdev
¶185Bolange Vitthal Uddhavrao
¶186Pawar Somnath Abhimanyu
¶187Mallav Sudhir Suresh
¶188Ghatmal Kishor Kacharu
¶189Thombare Jaykar Maruti
¶190Navkhare Ghanshyam Suresh
¶191Bondre Nilesh Pandurangappa 13 of 65
¶192Rathod Vikas Nagnath
¶193Wagh Bhagwant Mohan
¶194Navale Lahu Ramchandra
¶195Anjan Subhash Gadade
¶196Kumavat Machhindra Shyamrao
¶197Shendge Sudhakar Shivaji
¶198Dandade Vaibhav Vasantrao
¶199Shaikh Shakil Mohamadhanif
¶200Mohite Pawan Dinkar
¶201Shaikh Rihana Hamid
¶202Dattatraya Ravan Suryawanshi
¶203Baral Dilip Dasharth
¶204Pawar Gunvant Baliram
¶205Pramod Subhash Jagtap
¶206Manusmare Dinesh Shankar
¶207Darade Narendra Ashok
¶208Mohandas Ashok Patil
¶209Nitin Sadashiv Kamdi
¶210Nangare Dattatray Rajendra
¶211Jitendra Sukhadeo Tijare
¶212Naik Ankush Babu
¶213Raghorte-Chandrashekhar Yadav
¶214Bhongade Sachin Dhanraj
¶215Pathan Altaf Lateef
¶216Misal Samadhan Yashwanta
¶217Gutte Madhav Bapurao
¶218Bhaisare Manoj Wasudeo
¶219Misal Dnyandeo Tukaram
¶220Thombe Gajanan Uttamrao
¶221Anil Sakharam Patil
¶222Patil Prashant Rajaram
¶223Jadhav Anupam Bhaskar
¶224Chopade Hitesh Vinayak
¶225Ananta Sahebrao Jawale
¶226Ingle Vuay Nayabrao
¶227Bulange Sunil Munjaji
¶228Abhuit Maruti Bhor 14 of 65
¶229Darade Ramdas Shankarrao
¶230Vaunath Parmeshwar Anantwar
¶231Manure Ashif Mulaka
¶232Shaikh Bakthar Musa
¶233Vitthal Haribhau Munde
¶234Suryawanshi Rajkumar Dindayal
¶235Hajare Arjun Dhondiram
¶236Mandlik Somnath Sahdev
¶237Mahendra Maruti Khanapure
¶238Kishor Anandrao Thakur
¶239Raut Narendra Atmaram
¶240Dahiphale Pratapsinh Bhagawan
¶241Chirde Bharat Anandrao
¶242Malgaonkar Ramchandra Mohan
¶243Kshrisagar Ananta Govindrao
¶244Deshmukh Rahul Vidhyadhar
¶245Patel Komal Kanhaiyalal
¶246Vinayak Narayan Shinde
¶247Bhor Santosh Damodhar
¶248Atre Vaibhav Vikas
¶249Patil Nitin Prabhakar
¶250Bavane Satish Vinayak
¶251Bansude Dattatraya Maruti
¶252Chouhan Raising Kisansing
¶253Raut Akshay Namdeorao
¶254Ghansham Kawduji Marwadi
¶255Rathod Sanjaykumar Panditrao
¶256Gogawale Amol Krushana
¶257Hojage Santosh Dilip
¶258Sapkale Satish Dayaram
¶259Satote Dipak Mahadu
¶260Gupta Pradeep Rajkumar
¶261Rane Amol Gopinath
¶262Prakash Raghunath Patil
¶263Chavan Shivaji Anil
¶264Pratibha Krishnarao Ninawe 15 of 65
¶265Sonule Yuvraj Shriram
¶266Kalmegh Vikram Vinodrad
¶267Kishor Hiraman Solanke
¶268Dhapate Bhimrao Kantilal
¶269Kiran Dilip Patil
¶270Chavan Manoj Janardhan
¶271Kobarne Balasaheb Popat
¶272Powar Sachin Baburao
¶273Gaikwad Deepak Subhash
¶274Gulhane Vijay Haridasrao
¶275Ghuge Sandip Damodar
¶276Kawale Vikas Dhanlal
¶277Ramjan Madarso Shaikh
¶278Shaikh Ibrahim Mahibub
¶279Ingle Rupesh Uttamrao
¶280Paul Dilip Dharmraj
¶281Payghan Ganesh Atmaram
¶282Dhapate Bhimrao Kantilal
¶283Kiran Dilip Patil
¶284Chavan Manoj Janardhan
¶285Kobarne Balasaheb Popat
¶286Powar Sachin Baburao
¶287Gaikwad Deepak Subhash
¶288Gulhane Vijay Haridasrao
¶289Ghuge Sandip Damodar
¶290Kawale Vikas Dhanlal
¶291Ramjan Madarso Shaikh
¶292Shaikh Ibrahim Mahibub
¶293Ingle Rupesh Uttamrao
¶294Paul Dilip Dharmraj
¶295Payghan Ganesh Atmaram
¶296Gaikwad Nilesh Nivrutti
¶297Deepak Baliram Argade
¶298Chavhan Sujit Devidas
¶299Jadhao Sandip Haribhau
¶300Mandokar Janrao Ajabrao 16 of 65
¶301Mahadik Hemant Ramesh
¶302Devendra Bacharam Thorat
¶303Chavan Vikas Vilas
¶304Chorage Vishal Govind
¶305Thorat Niteeraj Dinkarrao
¶306Mundhe Bharat Madhav
¶307Rajesh Choturam Ghalde
¶308Sarkar Bikramjit Sukumar
¶309Lahudkar Santosh Kisan
¶310Devde Bhushan Sukdev
¶311Mundhe Tushar Kailas
¶312Shelke Nitin Rangnath Patil
¶313Suraj Sanjay Suvarna
¶314Pawshe Rohidas Tarbhau
¶315Gopal Gokul Pundlik
¶316Chandan Hiralal Sakala
¶317Mane Ganesh Tanaji
¶318Mane Kiran Laxman
¶319Anil Mahadev Tambade
¶320Ghatole Ajay Nandkishor
¶321Shekh Nabi Shekh Afsar
¶322Sadgir Sudam Uttam
¶323Avhad Siddhesh Dattatray
¶324Suryawanshi Rahul Subhash
¶325Kadam Rajesh Ravindra
¶326Ghuge Dinesh Jagannath
¶327Behare Hemant Shantaram
¶328Bhonde Duryodhan Sovinda
¶329Dhekane Jayaram Lahu
¶330Lendave Dattatraya Bhanudas
¶331Nirmal Amol Ramesh
¶332Mante Sandeep Suryabhan
¶333Pakhare Somanath Ajinath
¶334Shankar Bhanudas Sarje
¶335Pimpalpalle Gajanan Nivrutti
¶336Pole Vishnu Baliram
¶337Rampure Amasidha Kashianth 17 of 65
¶338Bhosale Jotiba Manoharrao
¶339Vinod Prakash Chavan
¶340Jiten Baliram Gaonkar
¶341Deshmukh Prakash Sudhakarrao
¶342Dhatrak Sachin Shantaram
¶343Annasaheb Vitthal Dighe
¶344Jalak Vishnu Tukaram
¶345Amol Rangraoji Gund
¶346Jadhav Bhagwat Sakharam
¶347Gholve Anant Vishnu
¶348Mulla Babaso Gulab
¶349Chavhan Shankar Ramrao
¶350Chobe Nanasaheb Ramhari
¶351Fulare Santosh Ashok
¶352Amol Ananda Chougale
¶353Surajuse Sumit Bhimrao
¶354Nanaware Sadashiv Arvind
¶355Jagtap Jayadatta Dasu
¶356Salunkhe Mahesh Suresh
¶357Pawar Nanasaheb Dasharath
¶358Pawar Mohan Suresh
¶359Deshmukh Anil Panjabrao
¶360Yogesh Gokul Deore
¶361Pawar Gaianan Devsing
¶362Rathod Anand Chandu
¶363Sonawane Vikas Ramdas
¶364Khamate Bhagwan Rangnath
¶365Sachin Devidas Jivade
¶366Sachin Suresh Yerunkar
¶367Tigile Hanumant Ankush
¶368Janghale Pawansing Ambarsing
¶369Patil Dipak Sahebrao
¶370Yenape Dattatray Shrishail
¶371Manoj Balakrishna Vikhankar
¶372Wadghule Devidas Ganpat
¶373Jadhav Chandrakant Uttam
¶374Gore Shivaji Shankar 18 of 65
¶375Musale Pintu Popat
¶376Dangat Sapana Jabaji
¶377Chaudhari Yogesh Suresh
¶378Mali Swati Bhimrao
¶379Bhosale Ranjit Vasantrao
¶380Sathe Pravin Ramesh
¶381Ekshinge Sampat Ratan
¶382Pawar Kashinath Pawar
¶383Minde Vishal Eknath
¶384Kharde Shivanand Gaianan
¶385Pathe Kiran Namdeo
¶386Dhekane Hanumant Khandu
¶387Raskar Vaibhav Namdev
¶388Sarak Shobharaj Balaso
¶389Sangle Santosh Manik
¶390Sawant Ajay Vitthal
¶391Rupesh Moreshwar Halmare
¶392Vishal Abhiman Kale
¶393Phadke Sateesh Ananda
¶394Arekar Gajanan Tatyaba
¶395Bambarse Ganesh Namdeo
¶396Kedari Amit Ankush
¶397Khamkar Pramod Mansing
¶398Patil Ravindra Arjuna
¶399Mahesh Gajanan Parankar
¶400Dipak Tukaram Wagave
¶401Birajdar Siddharam Mallinath
¶402Kale Amol Balasaheb
¶403Shinde Gokuldas Tanaji
¶404Vinayak Hanmant Shinde
¶405Sharad Deoram Dhangar
¶406Srágar Lingappa Nivruti
¶407Santosh Narayan Saka
¶408Nilesh Ramdas Wankhade
¶409Gite Devidas Nivrutti
¶410Kankhar Sandip Madhukar 19 of 65
¶411Karande Pravin Laxman
¶412Rathod Rekha Babusing
¶413Bamane Amol Parasu
¶414Kendre Hanmant Laxuman
¶415Vandana Ranuba Thok
¶416Pradeep Ramesh Nannaware
¶417Patil Suresh Raghunath
¶418Kshirsagar Santosh Baban
¶419Kale Kiran Raghunath
¶420Khot Motiram Bhalchandra
¶421Badgujar Yashpal Mohanrao
¶422Dombe Sharad Dnyanobarao
¶423Shaikh Ajimruddin Kamruddin
¶424Burungule Yogesh Arjun
¶425Suryakant Dattatraya Darade
¶426Dhore Rajendra Manohar
¶427Kawthekar Dnyanoba Kishanrao
¶428Nagargoje Shivkant Eknath
¶429Shinde Dattatray Anna
¶430Avhad Shekhar Bhaskar
¶431Ghodke Bhushan Dinkar
¶432Chavan Suresh Subhash
¶433Jakkalwad Niloba Maroti
¶434Buchake Ganesh Bharat
¶435Chavan Sulkshana Pandit
¶436Pisal Sachin Sahebrao
¶437Kadam Balaji Pandharinath
¶438Ghodke Narayan Rambhau
¶439Walhe Jitendra Ashok
¶440Rokade Nivas Zumbar
¶441Bhamare Sunil Amrut
¶442Delekar Sangram Pandurang
¶443Tamke Hanmant Narshigh
¶444Bagul Pannalal Shivaji
¶445Munde Ravindra Vishwanath
¶446Thorat Amol Jalindar
¶447Pritesh Dagadu Chaudhari 20 of 65
¶448Sunil Sadashiv Vagre
¶449Patil Deepak Bhika
¶450Phad Sandeep Kachru
¶451Pawar Kiran Baburad
¶452Chavan Kaviraj Bhimrao
¶453Patil Sangram Hindurad
¶454Shingate Subhash Ankush
¶455Solankar Ravikumar Namdeo
¶456Nitin Dadaso Hange
¶457Raut Ajay Harihar
¶458Chavan Manoj Ramchandra
¶459Athawale Amardeep Ramchandra
¶460Jarwal Kesharsing Fulsing
¶461Patil Mahesh Balasaheb
¶462Chavan Gangaram Onyandeo
¶463Yadav Manoj Hanamant
¶464Patait Mahamadmobin Shoukat
¶465Tikande Sandeep Shivaji
¶466Sanap Namdeo Uttam
¶467Shaikh Shahid Rafik
¶468Shaikh Imran Siraj
¶469Jagtap Amol Balu
¶470Santosh Shivraj Patil
¶471Chetanlal Dhannulal Patle
¶472Pawar Narendra Abhiman
¶473Gite Haridas Gite
¶474Dhotre Sarika Sheshrao
¶475Khandekar Rahul Chandrakant
¶476Sawwashe Nitin Arjun
¶477Satish Subhashrao Gawande
¶478Thakre Rahul Madhusudan
¶479Thorat Vishal Ashok
¶480Dipak Shravan Wankhede
¶481Sayyad Irfan Yunus
¶482Dokare Swami Banduji
¶483Pisal Ashok Vasudeo
¶484Sarika Bajrang Gatkul 21 of 65
¶485Prakash Ashok Katkade
¶486Pal Sanjay Uddhao
¶487Yogesh Baban Raje
¶488Jagtap Manisha Patilsaheb
¶489Wasane Nitin Sheshraoji
¶490Koli Mangesh Shrawan
¶491Devakate Navanath Shivaji
¶492Jadhav Prakash Manohar
¶493Lavate Sagar Vitthal
¶494More Yogesh Manik
¶495Khot Urmila Jalindar
¶496Sunil Sambhaji Kamble
¶497Gote Bajirao Narayan
¶498Kamlesh Shivprasad Sharma
¶499Ghorpade Ayodhya Prakash
¶500Thakre Nilesh Shivaji
¶501Madane Yogesh Haridas
¶502Shikalgar Shakeel Balu
¶503Salunkhe Abasaheb Bhagawanrao
¶504Bhosale Tatya Anna
¶505Dhumal Sagar Suryakant
¶506Balsaraf Jotiram Vitthal
¶507Rajendra Sovinda Borkar
¶508Sandeep Uttamrao Chavan
¶509Magare Dadabhai Adhar
¶510Pawar Bhimrao Ganparao
¶511Kotwale Raising Garbadsing
¶512Shinde Deepak Bajarang
¶513Waghmode Mahadeo Sampat
¶514Shendkar Nilesh Ankush
¶515Sayyed Jarinabi Raisoddin
¶516Sulakhe Chetan Satish
¶517Bhosale Hariba Vitthal
¶518Anil Suresh Mohite
¶519Bankar Ganesh Dattatray
¶520Mahandule Vinayak Govindrao
¶521Avhad Harish Ramesh 22 of 65
¶522Darade Anna Madhukar
¶523Dhonde Yogesh Chandrakant
¶524Ghadge Dnyaneshwar Jagannath
¶525Thombare Vikas Tukaram
¶526Tagad Tanaji Shivaji
¶527Pawar Avinash Vittalrao
¶528Waghmare Dattatraya Sudhakar
¶529Jiri Sachin Dasharath
¶530Shinde Sachin Balkrishana
¶531Machhale Rakesh Ramesh
¶532Vinod Chudaman Bar!
¶533Jadhav Nikhil Jagannath
¶534Pawar Shashikant Narayan
¶535Potekar Tushar Tanaji
¶536Madhav Balaji Jayebhaye
¶537Zanzane Amit Ramchandra
¶538Chavhan Prashant Bharat
¶539Buva Pravin Ravindra
¶540Salgare Hanmant Ganesh
¶541Patil Ranjit Vishnu
¶542Bangar Hanumant Raosaheb
¶543Giri Sunil Bhaskar
¶544Vairagal Naresh Vitthalrao
¶545Patil Sharad Tukaram
¶546Yerunkar Swapnil Sunil
¶547Patil Sachin Namdev
¶548Patil Sakshatkar Narayan
¶549Kumbhar Pravin Ramdas
¶550Devendra Dagadu Vende
¶551Suhas Babasaheb Batule
¶552Patil Dhanaji Dhondiram
¶553Patil Pravin Sahebrao
¶554Shinde Santosh Arun
¶555Pawar Jitendra Dattatray
¶556Kale Vuendra Bandopant
¶557Gaikwad Amit Rajendra
¶558Padole Manohar Bhimrao 23 of 65
¶559Patil Shivaji Tukaram
¶560Navedali Sahadatali Saiyyed
¶561Chile Sachin Shakrar
¶562Chavan Jayashri Shivaji
¶563Rathod Sunil Dharma
¶564Satyabhama Yeshwant Kharat
¶565Patil Shriram Abaji
¶566Zagade Amol Pralhad
¶567Raju Kumar Palve
¶568Lokhande Rahul Balasaheb
¶569Jadhav Netaji Sampatrao
¶570Gaikwad Bapu Dnyanraj
¶571Yogesh Sunil Patil
¶572Gawande Nitin Vasantrao
¶573Harne Mangesh Dnyandeo
¶574Bappasaheb Ambadas Dhaktode
¶575Gitte Kailas Madhav
¶576Mujawar Aslam Miraso
¶577Bhosale Shivaji Rajaram
¶578Karande Nitin Sudam
¶579Shinde Anuradha Vitthal
¶580Ranaware Satish Popat
¶581Thombare Navnath Bhivsen
¶582Santosh Shivaji Katre
¶583Pathan Imrankha Nurullakha
¶584Salvi Darshana Shashikant
¶585Galave Rajendra Janardhan
¶586Hembade Suraj Dadasaheb
¶587Munde Bibishen Pralhad
¶588Mahajan Walmik Eknath
¶589Dhakne Prakash Pandharinath
¶590Sayyad Rasul Jabbar
¶591Jadhav Yogesh Hanumant
¶592Deshmukh Shankar Gajendra
¶593Wagh Gajanan Eknath
¶594Nilesh Govindrao Ahire 24 of 65
¶595Sagar Tryambak Aavate
¶596Sisode Gajanan Murlidhar
¶597Chaudhari Dhanraj Manik
¶598Kharat Sanjay Mukinda
¶599Korade Amar Ramdas
¶600Chavhan Sunil Vikram
¶601Phule Mahadev Pralhadrao
¶602Sawant Pramod Dilip
¶603Awachar Mahadeo Dnyandeo
¶604Gadekar Shashikant Shriram
¶605Chavhan Santosh Rama
¶606Pathan Taikhan Munirkhan
¶607Chute Pradip Nilkanth
¶608Patil Mayur Panjabrao
¶609Katkar Kailas Hindurao
¶610Prakash Jagannath Chandewar
¶611Shaikh Rehan Aju
¶612Kute Mahavir Dilip
¶613Bade Santosh Pandurang
¶614Pavitrakar Dipak Chandrahasya
¶615Jadhav Avinash Kuber
¶616Kudale Aniket Shivaji
¶617Suryawanshi Rakesh Laxman
¶618Chaturvedi Manish Shivprasad
¶619Tonde Samadhan Balkrushna
¶620Sankpal Pradip Hanmant
¶621Barakade Amit Jagannath
¶622Mane Tukaram Manaji
¶623Nighut Sachin Shivaji
¶624Binnar Ramhari Dagdu
¶625Teli Pravin Suresh
¶626Narale Asha Ganpatrao
¶627Nand Sanjay Mohan
¶628Lahare Balu Fakirchand
¶629Gadhe Yogesh Machindranath
¶630Yabaji Shankar Mohanrao
¶631Aher Suresh Anurudra 25 of 65
¶632Devkar Vishal Mahadev
¶633Vasudeo Chandrakant Shinde
¶634Gosavi Praful Ashok
¶635Giree Gajanan Bhikaji
¶636Patil Manoj Ashok
¶637Patil Pradip Devram
¶638Ugale Bhikaji Ramnath
¶639Mahajan Premnath Namdeo
¶640Devendra Gairaj Suryawanshi ...Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16445 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13970 OF 2022 Manoj Rathod
...Applicant/Respondent In the matter of:- Sandip Bapu Fulpagare & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Major Rathod & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14333 OF 2022
¶1Sandip Laxman Patil,
¶2Deepak Bhika Patil,
¶3Hemant Ramesh Mahadik,
¶4Sachin Shivaji Nighut,
¶5Pintu Popat Musale,
¶6Pramod Mansing Khamkar,
¶7Sudam Uttam Sadgir,
¶8Nitin Arjun Sawwashe,
¶9Narendra Atmaram Raut,
¶10Amol Gopinath Rane,
¶11Sateesh Ananda Phadke,
¶12Amol Anant More,
¶13Abasaheb Bhagawanrao Salunkhe,
¶14Sangram Pandurang Delekar, 26 of 65
¶15Ranjit Vishnu Patil,
¶16Mahendra Maruti Khanapure,
¶17Shankar Gajendra Deshmukh,
¶18Mandar Madhukar Patil,
¶19Santosh Baban Kshirsagar,
¶20Prakash Manohar Jadhav,
¶21Komal Kanhaiyalal Patel,
¶22Devendra Bacharam Thorat,
¶23Vasudeo Chandrakant Shinde,
¶24Praful Ashok Gosavi,
¶25Madhav Shivajirao Waghchaure,
¶26Sarika Sheshrao Dhotre,
¶27Kaviraj Bhimrao Chavan,
¶28Seema Goraknath Bade,
¶29Dilip Darsharath Baral,
¶30Sunil Dharma Rathod,
¶31Satish Dayaram Sapkale,
¶32Dnyandeo Tukaram Misal,
¶33Macchindra Shamrao Kumavat,
¶34Manesh Chandrakant Shinde,
¶35Jijabai Pandit Dahiphale,
¶36Sachin Sahebrao Pisal,
¶37Arun Vinayak Shinde,
¶38Dipak Shravan Wankhede,
¶39Tushar Hanmantrao Salunkhe,
¶40Sachin Vilas Patil,
¶41Tatyasaheb Prakash Ballal,
¶42Sachin Haribhau Desale,
¶43Hemant Shantaram Behare,
¶44Sunil Bhaskar Giri,
¶45Navnath Shankar Kadam,
¶46Pradeep Ramesh Nannavare,
¶47Pravin Shivaji Jadhav,
¶48Subhash Ankush Shingate,
¶49Nikhil Jagannath Jadhav,
¶50Bhikaji Ramnath Ungale,
¶51Kiran Namdeo Pathe,
¶52Hariba Vitthal Bhosale, 27 of 65
¶53Siddhesh Dattatray Avhad,
¶54Narendra Abhiman Pawar,
¶55Devendra Dagadu Vende,
¶56Mangesh Sitaram Radye,
¶57Amol Balasaheb Kale,
¶58Ashwini Dyandev Bhosale,
¶59Amol Balasaheb Bandgar,
¶60Ankush Babu Naik,
¶61Ramchandra Mohan Malgaonkar,
¶62Anant Pandurang Kulkarni,
¶63Nagesh Shankarrao Pingale,
¶64Manohar Eknath Bhabad,
¶65Anupam bhaskar Jadhav,
¶66Swami Banduji Dokare,
¶67Nitin Vasantrao Gawande,
¶68Pravinkumar Jalindar Kapase,
¶69Tejab Raosaheb Rankhamb,
¶70Pritesh Dagadu Chaudhari,
¶71Jagdish Shamrao Mandale,
¶72Rajendra Janardhan Galave,
¶73Sandeep Shivaji Tikande,
¶74Devidas Nivrutti Gite,
¶75Rahul Sarjerao Gaikwad,
¶76Santosh Shivaji Katre,
¶77Darshana Shashikant Salvi,
¶78Vaibhav Vikas Atre,
¶79Hemraj Eknath Gawade,
¶80Sachin Devidas Jiwade,
¶81Dipak Haribhau Pachpor,
¶82Pradeep Rajkumar Gupta,
¶83Narendra Ashok Darade. ...Petitioners Versus
¶1The State of Maharashtra, through the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
28 of 65
¶2The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
¶3The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
¶4The Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
¶5The Director General of Police, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400001.
¶6The Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commissioner, 5th, 7th and 8th floor, Cooprej Telephone Exchange Building, Maharshi Karve Marg, Cooprej, Mumbai-400021.
¶7Manoj Raghunath Rathod, R/at Ambedkar Road, Pahade Chawl, Nanded, Maharashtra – 423104.
¶8Hanumant Bhagwat R/at Khadki (Khandobachi Wadi), Post, Devala, Ghat Sawli, Beed-431122.
¶9Ishwar Digambhar Holambe, R/at. Helamb, Parali Vaijanath, Beed.
¶10Dilip Shyam Rathod, R/at. Lakshmi Bhavan Building, Room No.28, Kala Chowky, Jakhariya Bandar Road, 29 of 65
Mumbai – 400033.
¶11Avinash Atmaram Achgekar, R/at. Post Honewadi, Tal. Aajra, Dist. Kolhapur – 416505. ...Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16444 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14333 OF 2022 Manoj Rathod
...Applicant/Respondent In the matter of:- Sandip Bapu Fulpagare & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents __________ Mr. Ravi R. Shetty a/w. Mr. Sandeep Dere for the Petitioners in WP/16025/2022. Mr. Akhilesh Dubey a/w. Mr. Sushant Walimbe, Mr. Hrutik Chavan and Ms. Srushty Kamble i/b. Ms. Aarti Nishad for the Respondent Nos.7 to 11 in WP/16025/2022 & WP/14333/2022 and for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in WP/13970/2022. Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader, Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P., Mr. M. M. Pable, AGP and Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent (State). Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane a/w. Mr. Sahil Choudhari for Applicant in IAST/3538/2024. __________ CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, JITENDRA JAIN, J.J. Date on which the Arguments were concluded : 26th February 2024. Date on which the Judgment is pronounced : 20th March 2024. JUDGMENT :- (Per Jitendra Jain, J.)
¶1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally. 30 of 65
¶2This group of petitions raises common issues and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. We, therefore, propose to deal with facts in Writ Petition No.16025 of 2022 for the purpose of our adjudication. Challenge :-
¶3By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 25th March 2022 passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal') in Original Application (O.A.) No.733 of 2019. Since the said order follows the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.722 of 2019 dated 4th March 2022, the Petitioners have also challenged the said order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has quashed the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 to absorb 636 candidates who have secured 230 and above marks.
¶4The present petition relates to the recruitment advertised in June 2016 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
(LDCE) 2016 and therefore, it is relevant to note important events which has resulted into the petition being heard by this Court finally.
¶5Narrative of events:-
(i) On 27th June 2016, the Respondent No.1-State issued an 31 of 65
advertisement for 828 vacancies for the post of PSI. The breakup of the said 828 post are as under:- Sr. Nos. Category No. of Posts Scheduled Caste 108+9*=117 Scheduled Tribes Vimukta Jati/Denotified Tribes (A) -- NT (B) NT (C) -- NT (D) -- Special Backward Class 16+5* Open Total *Backlog Posts
(ii) The above table indicates that out of 828 vacancies, 642 vacancies were to be filled by "Open Category" and the balance 186 were to be filled from "Reserved Category".
(iii) The above vacancies of 186 posts from reserved category were based on Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Reservation Act, 2001. Under the said Act, the State issued a Government Resolution dated 25th May 2004 reserving 33% in promotion for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified 32 of 65
Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes. The said Reservation Act and the Government Resolution was subject matter of challenge before this High Court in Writ Petition No.2797 of 2015 in the case of Vijay Ghogre & Ors. There was a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court and, therefore, a reference was made to a third learned Judge.
(iv) On 4th August 2017, after receiving the opinion of the third learned Judge, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:- ORDER
(i) The impugned judgment and order dated 28 November 2014 of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to the extent it strikes down the Reservation Act is set aside and the issue of constitutional validity of the Reservation Act is kept open for determination in appropriate case and on an appropriate occasion;
(ii) The Government Resolution dated 25 May 2004 is struck down to the extent it makes provisions for reservation in matters of promotions in favour of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (A), Nomadic Tribes (B), Nomadic Tribes (C), Nomadic Tribes (D) and Special Backward Classes, being ultra vires Article 16(4A) of the Constitution and contrary to the law laid down in M. Nagaraj case. The effect of this order was that the Government Resolution dated 25th May 2004 notifying the reservation in promotion was struck down being ultra-vires to Article 16(4A) of the Constitution and contrary to the law laid down in M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India1
(2006) 8 SCC 212 33 of 65
case. This means there cannot be reservation in promotion. The reasoning of this decision was reservation in the absence of quantifiable data was bad.
(v) Meanwhile, there was a dispute relating to age relaxation for LDCE 2016 examination, as to whether the age relaxation issued by Government Resolution dated 25th April 2016 is applicable to the advertisement dated 27th June 2016 to fill up 828 posts of PSI. This Court in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2017 in the case of Sushant Salvi vs. State of Maharashtra pronounced an order on 28th September 2017 by holding that the Government Resolution dated 25th April 2016 relaxing age criteria is applicable only for direct recruitment at the initial fresh entry in the Government Service and not applicable to selection of "in-service" candidates by way of promotion and since LDCE 2016 recruitment was selection by promotion, the age relaxation would not be applicable.
(vi) In view of what was observed by this Court in the case of Sushant Salvi, Respondent No.6-MPSC revised list of candidates selected who appeared for LDCE – 2016 by excluding those candidates who were overaged. Thereafter, 642 candidates from open category and 186 from reserved category were sent for training to Nasik.
(vii) On 5th March 2018, Respondent No.1-State sent additional 154 34 of 65
candidates for training in addition to 828 (642+186) candidates which were already sent for training resulting into an aggregate of 982 (642+186+154) candidates. The Respondent No.1-State realised that sending original 186 candidates from reserved category for training was contrary to the dictum of Vijay Ghogre's decision. However out of original 186 candidates from Reserved Category, 32 qualified on merit so as to be treated under open category and therefore the State was left with 154 reserved candidates. To offset these 154 reserved category candidates, additional 154 candidates were sent from the merit list. However, the Respondent No.1-State did not call back the 154 reserved category candidates but they were absorbed. This resulted into 2 groups of 154 candidates, namely first group of 154 reserved candidates who were originally sent and second group of additional 154 open category candidates who were sent subsequently. An undertaking was taken from the candidates from open category and in the appointment letter to the reserved category it was stated that their appointment was subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ghogre. This resulted into 982 (828+154) candidates being selected for training under LDCE – 2016 against 828 post being advertised. These additional candidates were sent consequent to the decision of this 35 of 65
Court in the case of Vijay Ghogre (supra).
(viii)Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the State to send additional 154 candidates for training, Miscellaneous Application No.472 of 2018 in Original Application No.394 of 2018 was filed before the Tribunal at Mumbai by one Mr. Santosh Bapurao Rathod & Others. The Tribunal on 4th October 2018 passed an ex-parte ad-interim order with notice to the Respondents therein to show-cause as to why the order should not be made absolute in following terms :-
(a) 32 reserved category candidates out of 186 in open merit competition (out of 186 candidates), stand protected.
(b) All such candidates who have been sent for training for Police Sub Inspector's post i.e. 154 (out of 186) in number who are amongst added respondents, who are chosen for promotion for filling in vacancies by promotion of candidates belonging to category for whom reservation is provided, shall not be given any benefits of training which they have undergone.
(c) Government shall be free to restore 154 candidates to the posts from which they were sent for training or at any posts, or keep them waiting at the choice of State and candidates however State shall not do anything, which shall amount to recurrent violation of the order of Hon'ble High Court Writ Petition No.2797/2015 shall be done.
(ix) On 6th November 2018, Original Application No.394 of 2018 alongwith Miscellaneous Application Nos.472 of 2018 and 586 of 2018 were disposed of. The Tribunal held that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2729 of 2015 (Vijay Ghogre) stands completely overruled post the judgment in the case 36 of 65
of Jarnail Singh. The Tribunal further held that post Jarnail Singh's judgment dated 26th September 2018, there is no ambiguity and, therefore, the fate of 154 candidates is no more hazy or in suspended animation. Further the Respondent No.1-State was directed to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh. The Tribunal took the view that test of quantifiable data for reservation laid down by Vijay Ghogre's decision is no more good law post para 21 of the decision in the case of Jarnail Singh which reads thus : "21. Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven-Judge Bench. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) supra is held to be invalid to this extent." However, the Tribunal observed that the Applicants were free to make a suitable representation to the Government if they were so advised and if such a representation was made, the Government was to consider it in due course and on its own merits.
(x) On 22nd April 2019, the Respondent No.1-State issued a Government Resolution to send 636 additional candidates for training. Consequently, the total candidates sent for training pursuant to LDCE – 2016 advertisement increased to 1618 (642 Original Open Category + 186 Reserved Category = 828 + 154 37 of 65
(Vijay Ghogre) + 636 G.R. dated 22nd April 2019 = 1618). The said Government Resolution came to be challenged before the Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench in O.A. No.722 of 2019. The stay of the said G. R. granted was vacated on 30th November 2019 and the candidate affected by the said order challenged the same before the High Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.15045 of 2019 in the case of Gajanann Bapulal Bansode & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra.2
(xi) On 6th March 2020, the aforesaid Writ Petition No.15045 of 2019 was disposed of. The order reads thus:- ORDER [I] The respondents may send these 636 persons for training of nine
(09) months. [II] We request the tribunal to decide the Original Application No. 722 of 2019, preferably within a period of nine (9) months so that before the posting/ appointment orders are issued the original application would be decided and all the issues would be finally adjudicated in the original application. [III] The parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the proceedings. [IV] The applicants in the intervention application filed in the present writ petition shall be arrayed as party respondents by the petitioners. [V] The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 12.03.2020. [VI] As the date has been given, it is not necessary to issue separate notice to these intervenors who are added as parties. Writ Petition No.15045 of 2019 decided on 6th March 2020 38 of 65
(xii) The aforesaid order passed in Writ Petition No.15045 of 2019 was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on 5th February 2021 in Civil Appeal No.104 of 2021 (Gajanan Babulal Bansode & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) held that the Authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised. The recruitment of candidates in excess of notified vacancies would be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 30th November 2019 and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.15045 of 2019 dated 6th March 2020. It also stayed the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 till the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court further directed the Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal to decide the O.A. within a period of six months with a direction that 636 candidates be heard in the adjudication proceedings. Relevant paragraphs of the said order of the Supreme Court reads thus:- "14. Rule 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if in the opinion of the government, the exigencies of service require, the ratio prescribed for appointment by promotion, on the basis of Limited Departmental Examination or nomination, may be relaxed with the prior consultant of the Commission. The Government would be required to establish before the Tribunal as to whether there were any extra-ordinary circumstances which have warranted the exercise of power under Rule 5, which may be resorted to 39 of 65
only in rare and exceptional circumstances.
¶15The impugned G.R. seeks to fill up double the number of vacancies which were notified for the LCDE – 2016 by the Circular dated 27.06.2016. It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India."
¶6Pursuant to above, the Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal on 4th March 2022 passed a detailed order and quashed Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 by which 636 candidates were sought to be absorbed and consequently allowed the O.A. No.722 of 2019. This order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal was followed by the Mumbai Bench in O.A. No.733 of 2019 and allowed reliefs (a), (b) and
(c) which read as under :- " (a) to quash and set aside the G.R. dated 22.04.2019.
(b) hold and declare that the action of Respondent filling the posts under GR dated 22/04/2019 is ultra vires of the Constitution and the prevalent legal position.
(c) Recall all the acts done by the Police department in furtherance of the implementation of the G.R dated 22.04.2019."
¶7It is on this backdrop that the Petitioners being aggrieved by the quashing of the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 by which 636 candidates were sought to be absorbed by sending them for training are before us challenging the orders passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.722 of 2019 dated 4th March 2022 and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.733 of 2019 dated 25th March 2022. 40 of 65
Sub
missions of the Petitioners
: -
¶8The Petitioners submit that their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated and the Respondent No.1-State has created class within class as per their own policy decision but the present Petitioners have been left out of consideration and therefore, they have challenged the said action in the present petition. The Petitioners further submit that the Respondent No.1-State has been taking contradictory stand with respect to 154 candidates who were sent for training by stating on oath that the LDCE selection is a direct recruitment and in the same breath stating that the selection by direct recruitment is not applicable to in-service candidates. The Petitioners submitted that the State cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The Petitioners relied upon various affidavits filed before the Tribunal by the Respondent No.1-State, advertisement for recruitment, Government communications and G.R. to contend that LDCE – 2016 is a selection by promotion of in-service candidates and not direct recruitment as now sought to be contended by the State. The Petitioners further submitted that the selection of original 154 candidates from reserved category was contrary to the decision of this Court in Vijay Ghogre's case (supra) and therefore these 154 reserved candidates cannot be recruited. The Petitioners further submitted that to counter-balance the same, the Respondent No.1-State sent second 41 of 65
batch of 154 candidates and both these groups of 154 candidates each were subjected to an undertaking that their recruitment is dependent upon the outcome of the decision in the case of Vijay Ghogre's. The Petitioners, therefore, submitted that it cannot be said that 154 candidates are selected from the merit list. The Petitioners submitted that the impugned Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 was adopted by the State as a corrective measure to select all the candidates who scored 230 or more than 230 marks to protect the rights of these candidates under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners further submitted that concept of "transitional arrangement" by subjecting the two groups of 154 candidates to an undertaking is unknown to service jurisprudence. They further submitted that reservation in promotion is upheld by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj's case.
¶9The Petitioners also contended that 154 candidates selected on merits have been confirmed on 6th October 2018 and other 154 reserved candidates are confirmed on 20th November 2018 on the basis that it was not a promotional examination. The Petitioners have relied upon their written submissions and prayed that the writ petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned Tribunal orders. 42 of 65
Submissions of the Contesting Respondent No.1 : -
¶10The Respondent No.1 State raised a preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that since these Petitioners are the candidates in excess of posts advertised, they cannot file the present petition because they cannot be considered at all. The Respondent No.1 -State further submitted that it is not open to the Petitioners to assert the rights on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 and at the same time to call in question the action of the Government. The Respondent No.1-State further submitted that de hors the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019, the Petitioners have no right whatsoever to promotion. The Respondent No.1-State has categorically stated that the Government has not challenged the order dated 4th March 2022 in Original Application No. 722 of 2019 by which the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 has been set aside. The Respondent No.1-State, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Analysis and Conclusions : -
¶11We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Advocate General for the Respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the other Respondents. With their assistance we have perused the documents annexed to the petition, submissions filed and 43 of 65
compilation of documents and judgments tendered in the course of hearing.
¶12The Petitioners before us are seeking revival of Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 by which they were sought to be recruited as Police Sub-Inspector. These Petitioners were the Respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has quashed the Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019 and therefore, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the Tribunal's order. Further, the Supreme Court in Gajanan Bansode's case directed the Tribunal to ensure that notice is given to these 636 candidates so that they participate in the proceedings. Therefore, in our view, it can be said that the Petitioners have locus standi to file the present petition since they are beneficiaries of the Government Resolution which is under challenge. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Respondent No.1-State on this count.
13.
The next issue which arises is whether LDCE-2016 is a promotion of in-service candidates or a direct recruitment. The advertisement dated 27th June 2016 issued was on the basis that it is a promotional position since the said advertisement provided for reservation at 33%. If the advertisement was for direct recruitment then higher reservation of 50% would have been provided and since only 33% was provided, LDCE-2016 is a selection by promotion of in-service 44 of 65
candidates and not the case of direct recruitment. The reserved category candidates did not object to the same at any stage of the proceedings and therefore, today in the present petition cannot contend that it is the case of the direct recruitment. Furthermore, the reserved category candidates also did not raise this issue before the Tribunal but on the contrary, they proceeded before the Tribunal on the correct premise that it is the case of the promotion by placing reliance on the decision in case of Vijay Ghogre (supra). Therefore, the conduct of the reserved category candidates clearly demonstrates and rightly so that LDCE-2016 is a selection by promotion of in-service candidates and not a direct recruitment. Reliance placed by the learned Advocate Dr. Mane on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Pavnesh Kumar Vs. Union of India3 supports the case of the respondent-State that LDCE-2016 is a mode of accelerated promotion though not normal mode of promotion. The Supreme Court in case of Akhilesh Prasad Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission4 has also held that LDCE is a promotional exercise which gives an opportunity of accelerated promotion and it is not the case of a direct recruitment. This Court in the case of Sushant Salvi (supra) has also held that LDCE-2016 is selection by promotion of in-service persons. The Government Resolution of 27th June 2016 also states so. The requisition dated 2nd June 2016 by Respondent No.1-Civil Appeal No.3641 of 2023 decided on 28th November 2023 2022 SCC OnLine SC 510 45 of 65
State to Respondent No.6-MPSC and opinion of Law & Judiciary Department also reiterates that it is selection by promotion of in-service candidates. In our view, LDCE-2016 cannot be said to be process of direct recruitment but it is selection by promotion under Rule 3(b) of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the LDCE-2016, in our view, is selection by promotion falling under Rule 3(b) of the Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment Rules, 1995.
¶14The only issue which now arises for our consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the Respondent No.1-State was justified in issuing Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 to absorb additional 636 candidates in excess of original 828 candidates as per the advertisement dated 27th June 2016. If we come to a conclusion that the Respondent No.1-State was not justified in issuing such Government Resolution then 636 candidates who are proposed to be absorbed / sent for training under the said GR would not be eligible to participate for selection by promotion.
¶15The brief facts leading to the present writ petition in chronological order are as under :-
(a) On 27th June 2016, Respondent No.1-State in consultation with Respondent No.6-MPSC notified 828 vacancies for the post of PSI. Out of 828, 642 were to be related from open category and 46 of 65
balance 186 from reserved category.
(b) Respondent No.1 realising the effect of Vijay Ghogre's decision of this Court and against which appeal was pending before the Supreme Court decided to realign the 186 vacancies by treating 32 of them as open category because of their merit and balance 154 were informed in the appointment letter that their appointments would be subject to outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ghogre.
(c) To provide for contingency of above Supreme Court decision, Respondent No.1-State decided to recruit 154 from open category with an undertaking from them that their recruitment would be subject to outcome of the Supreme Court decision in Vijay Ghogre.
(d) Consequent to above, 982 candidates were sent for recruitment – [642+32+154(R)+154(0)].
(e) On 22nd April 2019, Respondent No.1-State issued a Government Resolution to send 636 candidates for reasons mentioned in the said Government Resolution.
(f) Due to above, candidates sought to be sent for training/ recruitment under LDCE-2016 became 1618 (982+636).
(g) On 25th September 2023, by an interim order of this Court in CWP/13227/2018 another 154 candidates were directed to be sent for training. 47 of 65
(h) Result of above was as against 828 notified vacancies 1772 candidates were sent for training of which fate of 1098 [(154(R) +154(0)+636(GR)+154(H.Ct.)] candidates was uncertain.
¶16The impugned Government Resolution as translated dated 22nd April 2019 reads thus :- GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION HOME DEPARTMENT Government Resolution Number : Police-1818/M.No.355/Pole-5A Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032. Date : 22nd April, 2019 PREFACE :- The Government had received a demand to absorb on the post of Police Sub-inspector, more candidates besides 828 candidates mentioned in the recommendation list of candidates prepared by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission on the basis of the final result of the Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Examination, year 2016. The said Candidates had demanded that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission had recommended 828 candidates in the Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Examination, year 2016 to the Government and while sending the concerned 828 candidates as per the said Recommendation List, for training for the post of Police Sub-Inspector, it was necessary to fill up the posts reserved for the Backward Class category on the basis of merits instead of filling up the said posts category-wise, by taking into consideration the decision given on the date 04.08.2017 by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court regarding the reservation for promotion in Government service. However, while sending these 828 candidates for the training for the post of Police Sub-Inspector, as the Office of the Director General of Police sent even 186 candidates belonging to the Backward class category, from out of these 828 candidates, the contempt of the order passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Mumbai was committed. The Government, after obtaining legal advice in Original Application No.13/2018 (Shri Rajendra Chavan) filed before the Hon'ble Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in this connection, took a decision to send 186 more candidates from Serial number 643 onwards in the Recommendation List as per their Merit number on 186 posts reserved for the candidates belonging to backward class category, besides 828 candidates (which include the candidates on 642 posts in open category and the candidates on 186 posts reserved for backward class category) and accordingly, the Government gave instructions to the Director General of 48 of 65
Police to send remaining 154 candidates for the training for the post of Police Sub-Inspector who could have been included on both the basis i.e. backward class category and merit and who had already been sent for the said training for the posts actually reserved for backward class category, by excluding 32 candidates. In the Government Letter in this regard, it has also been clearly mentioned that the inclusion of the said candidates shall be subject to the final decision in Special Leave Petition number 28306/2017 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
As mentioned hereinabove, 828 + 154 = 982 candidates of the Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Examination, year 2016 were sent for training. Thereafter, objection were raised to the aforesaid action and requests had been received by the Government to fill up all these 982 posts as per the merit and also to send all the candidates who have scored 230 and more marks for the training for the post of Police Sub-inspector as the candidate belonging to backward class category who had scored 230 marks, was taking training of the post of Police Sub-Inspector. Moreover, Original Application No. 394/2018 (S.B.Rathod and others) had been filed in this regard, before the Hon'ble Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The Director General of Police, after taking into consideration the interim order of the Hon'ble Tribunal passed on the date 04.10.2018, instead of sending 154 candidates belonging to backward class category who had been selected on the posts reserved for backward class category and had completed 9 months' training, for further basic training of the post of Police Sub-Inspector, directed them to resume duty on their original post, in their original Unit. Therefore, the Government, by taking into consideration, the representations received from various Peoples' Representatives, candidates due to the said action and the final order passed on the date 06.11.2018 by the Hon'ble Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 394/2018, has taken a decision to send the said 154 candidates belonging to the backward class category for further basic training for the post of Police Sub-Inspector and pursuant to the said decision, the Director General Of Police took action to send these candidates for further training.
Thus, in the process of the Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Examination, year 2016, instead of 828 posts mentioned in the original Requisition Letter, 982 candidates have been appointed to the post of Police Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, Government had received the representation from the concerned candidate mentioning therein that the candidate mentioned at Sr.No.1615 belonging to the backward class category from out of these 982 candidates, has scored 230 marks and that despite scoring marks more than him, he has not been appointed to the post of Police Sub-Inspector and that injustice has been caused to him as a result thereof and also from the several Peoples' Representatives. In view thereof, the issue was under consideration of the Government to absorb 636 candidates who have scored 230 and more 49 of 65
than 230 marks, besides the candidates mentioned in the Recommendation List of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission in the process of the Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Examination, year 2016 to the posts of Police Sub-Inspector.
On this background, the Hon'ble Cabinet, in its Cabinet Meeting dated
20.02.2019, has taken a decision as follows: "Approval be granted to absorb 636 more candidates from the Merit List published by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, besides the number of posts mentioned in the original Requisition Letter in respect of the Police Sub Inspector Limited Departmental Examination, Year 2016, in phase-wise manner to the posts that would fall vacant from time to time in future in the quota that would be filled up through the Police Sub Inspector Limited Departmental Examination. However, this decision should be brought to the notice of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai and thereafter, further steps should be taken". GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION :- Government approval is hereby granted to absorb 636 candidates, who have scored 230 and more than 230 marks (as per the List in Appendix-A appended herewith) from the Merit List published by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, besides 828 candidates as per the Original Requisition Letter in respect of the Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Examination, year 2016, on the posts falling vacant from time to time in future, in the quota to be filled up by way of the Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Examination, in phase-wise manner.
¶2Accordingly, the Director General of Police shall take further necessary steps in this direction. While taking the said steps, precaution should be taken to see that contempt of the order, if any, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Mumbai and its Benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur or by the Hon'ble Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in this matter, is not committed.
¶3The candidates named in Appendix-A annexed to the Government Resolution, shall fill up the attestation forms in the format prescribed by the Government and shall submit the same directly to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, within a period of 30 days.
¶4……. 50 of 65
¶17The Petitioners have submitted that this Court cannot examine the policy decision of the State that has led to the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019. We are afraid we cannot accept this submission. Firstly, the Tribunal has given reasons for quashing the impugned Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 and the same is under challenge before us. Secondly, the Supreme Court in various decisions which are referred to hereinafter and more particularly in the decision in the case of Gajanan Babulal Bansode (supra) wherein this very Government Resolution was under consideration has directed the Tribunal to consider if there are any exceptional circumstances for issuing the impugned Government Resolution. Therefore, even on this count, this Court is duty bound to examine the validity of the impugned Government Resolution based on the directions given by the Supreme Court and on the basis of which the Tribunal has quashed the impugned Government Resolution. Thirdly, whether the impugned Government Resolution passes the constitutional test or not, would certainly be within the scope of this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. Therefore, in our view, this Court is certainly within its jurisdiction to examine the basis of issuing the impugned Government Resolution.
¶18The Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Babulal Bansode (supra) that arose from the order of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court 51 of 65
in Writ Petition No.15045 of 2019 in paragraph 15 observed as under :- "15. The impugned G.R. seeks to fill up double the number of vacancies which were notified for the LCDE – 2016 by the Circular dated 27.06.2016. It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India."
¶19There is no dispute that as per the Government Resolution dated 27th June 2016, 828 vacancies were notified out of which 642 were under the "Open Category" and the balance 186 were from "various Reserved Category" for promotion to the post of PSI through LDCE – 2016. The Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019 seeks to enhance the said figure by additional 636. The Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the said Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019 does not pass the test of "extra-ordinary situation" for recruitment of posts more than what was notified on 27th June 2016. Therefore, we are required to examine the Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019 to ascertain where the State was faced with any extra-ordinary situation which compelled it to issue the said Government Resolution for recruitment of additional 636 candidates for promotion to PSI (in excess of what was notified on 27th June 2016).
¶20The test of "extra-ordinary situation" would have to be assessed on the touch stone of what is stated in the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019. On a reading of the said Government 52 of 65
Resolution, it is stated that additional recruitment was sought based on the representation received by the Government. In the said representation it was stated that 186 candidates belonging to reserved category could not have been appointed because of the decision of the High Court in case of Vijay Ghogre (supra) whereby this Court had struck down the Government Resolution dated 25th April 2004 providing for reservation in promotion. Therefore, sending 186 reserved candidates for training amounted to contempt of the Court. Out of these 186 reserved category candidate 32 candidates were such who qualified under the "Open Category" because of their marks and therefore they were to be considered under the "Open Category" which resulted into balance 154 candidates from the reserved category and appointment of these 154 candidates was subject to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vijay Ghogre in Civil Appeal No.28306 of 2017. Therefore, the State decided that all those candidates who scored 230 marks and above were required to be sent for training. The said Government Resolution further refers to OA No.394 of 2018 filed before the Principal Bench. It further states that 154 reserved category candidates were absorbed by giving appointment letters. Therefore those candidates who scored more than 230 marks and who were not sent would result into injustice as per the various representations received. Therefore the decision was taken to recruit 636 additional candidates 53 of 65
and a resolution to the said effect was passed.
¶21In our view, on a perusal of the Government Resolution, it nowhere states the extra-ordinary situation for recruiting additional 636 candidates. What is stated in the said Resolution is narration of various proceedings before the Court and the Tribunal whereby on account of the striking down of Government Resolution permitting reservation in promotion, 154 reserved candidates who were notified in the 2016 advertisement were given appointment letter and same were subject to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vijay Ghogre (supra). Therefore, as per the representations received, the said recruitment of 154 candidates would be contrary to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Ghogre (supra) and therefore, candidates scoring more than 230 marks should be sent which figure was 636. In our view, other than reference to the various Court proceedings, there is no other statement on what was the extra-ordinary situation which compelled the State Government to recruit more than what was notified in the advertisement dated 27th June 2016. The reference to Tribunal and Court proceedings in the Government Resolution cannot in our view be treated as an extra-ordinary situation nor the same was the understanding of the State Government as evident from the said Government Resolution. 54 of 65
¶22Therefore in our view, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in the absence of any extra-ordinary situation borne out from the Resolution, any recruitment above the number of vacancies notified/advertised would be bad in law. It is also important to note that the Respondent No.1-State has not challenged the quashing of Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019. Whether an extra-ordinary situation exists for the State Government to recruit additional 636 candidates will have to be answered by the State Government. We are afraid that the State Government has not made any submissions on this count as to what was the extra-ordinary situation which compelled them to issue the Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019. If that be so, then the Petitioners cannot contend that there was an extra-ordinary situation for the Government to absorb additional 636 candidates. It is only the State Government that can answer this question and in the absence of any submission on that behalf by the State Government, it would be safe to conclude that there did not exist any extra-ordinary situation to issue such a Government Resolution for recruiting more than what was notified in the 2016 advertisement.
¶23The Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Babulal Bansode (supra) in paragraph 15 while dealing with this very issue with regard to LDCE – 2016 has observed that it is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified 55 of 65
number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies would be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. We have already observed that we have not been shown any extra-ordinary situation by the State Government which has issued the said Government Resolution and certainly the candidates who want to take the benefit of the said Government Resolution cannot contend that what is stated in the Government Resolution would be extra-ordinary situation. It is the authority that has issued the Government Resolution who has to indicate the existence of an extra-ordinary situation and if the State does not do so then in our view Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019 will have to be held to be contrary to paragraph 15 of Gajanan Babulal Bansode (supra). The impugned Government Resolution is issued by Respondent No.1-State. The said Government Resolution was the subject matter of adjudication before the Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the Government Resolution on the ground of absence of extra-ordinary/exigencies having been shown. The Respondent No.1-State has accepted this decision of the Tribunal. The sequitur which follows from this acceptance is that in fact no extra-ordinary situation exits to recruit more than what was notified in the advertisement. Today, the Petitioners cannot put words in the mouth of the Respondent No.1-State to make them speak of the existence of extra-ordinary situation when 56 of 65
the State has failed to address this issue. Since the State's mouth is silent it can be inferred that it may have realised its mistake in issuing the impugned Government Resolution and therefore, it did not challenge the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, even on this count, the Petitioners cannot seek revival of the impugned Government Resolution. We may however, observe that the Petitioners were belied by the issuance of the impugned Government Resolution which does not stand legal scrutiny.
¶24The Supreme Court in following decisions has consistently reiterated that in service law, there cannot be recruitment of more than the number of posts which is advertised and if more than the number notified is to be recruited, then same would have to be in an exceptional circumstances or in rare circumstances.
(i) Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.5,
(ii) Arup Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.6
(iii) Amlan Jyoti Barooah Vs. State of Assam & Ors.7
(iv) Surinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.8
(v) Vivek Kaisth & Anr. Vs. State of HP & Ors.9
¶25Certainly in the present case, we do not find any extra-ordinary circumstances for the State Government to issue 22nd April
(2010) 2 SCC 637
(2012) 5 SCC 559
(2009) 3 SCC 227
(1997) 8 SCC 488
(2024) 2 SCC 269 57 of 65
2019 Government Resolution for the absorption of 636 candidates. The representations made by various individuals in which it is stated that the recruitment is contrary to the decision of the High Court in the case of Vijay Ghogre cannot certainly be treated as an extra-ordinary circumstance. Assuming that the recruitment is contrary to a particular judgment of the High Court, it may result into that decision being wrong but certainly cannot be treated as extra-ordinary situation for recruitment of more than the number notified.
¶26We may note the decision of the Madras High Court, where the State had to recruit more than the number of vacancies advertised and the justification for the same was on account of medical emergency and same was upheld by the High Court in case of Dr. Sagaya Panimalar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.10 The Madras High Court was posed with a situation, wherein it had to decide whether the circumstances were extra-ordinary circumstances for the State to recruit more than notified vacancies without issuing a fresh notification and without following the due recruitment process. In that case, there was outbreak of dengue fever all over the State of Tamil Nadu and many people started dying due to shortage of doctors to attend in primary health medical center. Judicial note of this situation was taken by National Human Rights Commission and direction was issued by the said 10 2017 SCC Online Mad 24226 58 of 65
Commission to fill up vacancies of doctors. In these circumstances, the Madras High Court held that this would constitute an extra-ordinary situation to deviate from the notification to fill up vacancies for the post of doctors from the waiting list of selected candidates. Since if new notification had to be issued, it would only result into delay and larger purpose of saving individuals life would be defeated. The Court observed that public interest would suffer if the recruitment process had to be done by giving fresh notification and it was in these circumstances, that appointment of selected candidates for waiting list was upheld. In the present case before us, no such extra-ordinary situation has been pointed out which would pass the test of extra-ordinary situation to uphold the Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019.
¶27The recruitment of the Police Sub-Inspector is governed by the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995. Rule 2(a) defines "Commission" to mean the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. Rule 3 prescribes that Appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Force in the State of Maharashtra shall be made either (a) by promotion on the basis of seniority or (b) by selection of persons working in the Police Force on the basis of the result of the limited departmental examination held by the Commission for appointment or (c) by nomination on the basis of the result of a 59 of 65
competitive examination held by the Commission. Rule 4 prescribes that the appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector by promotion, selection on the basis of limited departmental examination and nomination shall be made in the ratio of 25:25:50. Rule 5 prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of service, so require, Government may with prior consultation with the Commission make appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in relaxation of the ratio prescribed for appointment by promotion, selection on the basis of limited departmental examination or nomination.
¶28In our view, aforesaid Rule 5 would apply to a case where the ratio of 25:25:50 is to be disturbed. In the instant case before us, we are not concerned with the action of the Respondent No.1-State in disturbing this ratio but we are concerned with whether the Respondent State can recruit more than what is advertised by promotion of in-service police constables. In the Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019 also, the Respondent-State has not exercised its power under Rule 5. Therefore, one cannot rely upon Rule 5 to justify the action of recruiting 636 candidates under the impugned Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019. Assuming that the Respondent-State has exercised its power under Rule 5 then the said power can be exercised only with prior consultation with the Commission. Although Rule 5 60 of 65
prescribes that the Government "may" with prior consultation with the Commission exercise its power under Rule 5, in our view, the said phrase "may" should be construed as "shall." This is so because Rule 5 has to be read along with Article 320 (3)(a) and (3)(b) of the Constitution of India which provides that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all matters relating to the methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts and on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision in the case of Dinkar Anna Patil & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.11 where while interpreting Maharashtra Sales Tax Officers Class I (Recruitment) Rules, 1982 which provided for consultation with Public Service Commission, Supreme Court held that the phrase "may" should be interpreted as "shall" so that requirement of consultation with the Commission is not rendered nugatory.
¶29In the instant case, in the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019, we could not find any reference to the consultation with the Commission nor any document has been shown to us by the parties which will indicate that consultation was made by the Respondent 11 (1999) 1 SCC 354 61 of 65
No.1-State with Respondent No.6-Commission. Therefore even on this count, the impugned Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 inasmuch as it seeks to recruit 636 candidates without consultation with the Commission is bad-in-law.
¶30Rule 5 further prescribes that the ratio can be disturbed if the "exigencies of service" so require. The phrase "exigencies of service" would mean extra-ordinary situation which arose which compels the Government to disturb the ratio. The word "exigencies" has to be read with "of service." We have already observed above that there have been no extra-ordinary circumstances which have been shown to us which compelled the Respondent No.1-State to recruit more than what was advertised. Furthermore in our view, the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 refers to various representations received from various quarters which led to issuance of the said Government Resolution for recruitment of additional 636 candidates. In our view, such receipt of representations from various quarters would not fall within the expression "exigencies of service" and therefore even on this count, the impugned Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 is contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules.
¶31The Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 reproduces the decision taken by the Cabinet in its meeting dated 20th February 62 of 65
2019. In the said Cabinet meeting, the decision is taken that approval granted to absorb 636 more candidates, besides the number of posts mentioned in the original requisition letter in respect of LDCE 2016 is to fill up in a phase-wise manner the posts that would fall vacant from time to time in future in the quota that would be filled up in the LDCE. The said decision further states that same should be brought to the notice of the Tribunal and thereafter further steps should be taken. From this Cabinet meeting decision, it appears that the excess candidates are sought to be absorbed to fill up the vacant posts which would arise in future. In our view, this cannot fall within the "extra-ordinary circumstances" or "exigencies." Similar issue had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh and Ors. Vs. HSEB & Ors.12 wherein the Supreme Court held that excess recruitment to fill future vacancies was invalid. Similar view is reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Mandan Mohan Singh & Ors.13 Therefore, the reason given in the decision of the Cabinet meeting to absorb 636 more candidates besides the original advertised posts is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision and consequently, the Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019 cannot be sustained since same cannot be done to fill up future vacancies. 12 (1996) 4 SCC 319 13 (1994) Supp 3 SCC 308 63 of 65
¶32The aforesaid cabinet decision also states that same should be brought to the notice of the Tribunal and thereafter further steps should be taken. In our view, the Cabinet appears to have taken this decision to absorb 636 more candidates subject to the approval of the same by the Tribunal and therefore, they have stated that further steps should be taken after bringing of the notice of the Tribunal the said cabinet decision. In the instant case, the Tribunal has not approved the said decision by quashing the Government Resolution of 22nd April 2019 and, therefore, even on this count, the Petitioners cannot seek any relief. The absorption of 636 candidates over and above the number of vacancies advertised would deprive candidates who become eligible for promotion thereafter because if the said additional posts are advertised subsequently then those who become eligible for appointment would not be entitled to apply for the same.
¶33The advertisement dated 27th June 2016 does not state that the number of vacancies notified would change in future as the process of recruitment progresses. Therefore, even on this count the impugned Government Resolution to absorb 636 candidates over and above 828 notified cannot stand legal scrutiny.
¶34The decisions relied upon by the Petitioners in the compilation of case laws are on general interpretation and are not applicable to the facts of the present case before us and therefore, we 64 of 65
are not dealing with the same.
¶35We may observe that in the present decision, we have not expressed any views on the fate of decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Ghogre (supra) post Jarnial Singh's case but we have analysed the same in Writ Petition No.13227 of 2018.
¶36We agree with the submission of Respondent No.1-State that 154 candidates from reserved category and open category are appointed on the basis of the appointment letter / undertaking by which they will abide by the outcome of the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ghogre (supra).
¶37Looked at from any angle, in our view, the Tribunal in OA No.722 of 2019 and in O.A. No.733 of 2019 was justified in quashing the impugned Government Resolution dated 22nd April 2019. Therefore, the present Writ Petitions are required to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Rule is discharged. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, Interim Applications do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.] (This Judgment is modified as per speaking order dated 27th March 2024. The corrections in the Judgment are shown in italics) 65 of 65
Source: High Court of Bombay, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.