Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 6170 Bom
Judgement Date : 19 October, 2016
WP 5824/15
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5824/2015
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Chief Engineer,
(Water Resources),
North Maharashtra Region, Nasik.
3] The Superintending Engineer,
(GATE), Central Design
Organization and Zonal Officer,
Nasik Zone, Dindori Raod, Nasik.
..Petitioners..
Versus
Vishal S/o Apasing Pawara,
Age:30 years, Occu.Nil,
R/o: 52, Tirupati Nagar,
Near GTP Stop, Deopur
Dhule, Dist.Dhule.
...Respondent..
.....
Smt.M.A. Deshpande, AGP for petitioners.
Shri Avinash S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent.
.....
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 19.10.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
WP 5824/15
- 2 -
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up
for final disposal at this stage.
2] The present petitioners issued an advertisement
bearing No.1/2013 for filling in posts from various
cadres. Fifteen posts were meant for ST category. The
respondent had applied for the post of Civil Engineering
Assistant from ST category. The respondent was selected
securing 100 out of 200 marks. After the present
respondent was selected, the petitioners issued a
communication directing the present respondent to produce
either degree or diploma certificate as prescribed in the
advertisement, failing which, he would be declared
ineligible for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant.
The petitioners did not issue appointment order on the
ground that the present respondent did not possess the
necessary qualification as laid down in the
advertisement. Aggrieved thereby, the present respondent
filed Original Application No.282/2014 before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad. The
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed the said
WP 5824/15
- 3 -
application directing the present petitioners to hold the
present respondent eligible for the post of Civil
Engineering Assistant. The petitioners have assailed the
said judgment in the present writ petition.
3] The learned AGP submits that the Tribunal
misdirected itself while considering the eligibility of
the present respondent de hors the eligibility mentioned
in the advertisement. The advertisement specifically
required that a person applying for the post of Civil
Engineering Assistant should possess either diploma from
State Technical Institute or B.E. It was necessary for
the person applying to possess either degree or diploma
certificate. The respondent was possessing a certificate
of construction technology and not a diploma or degree as
was required. The said advertisement was in consonance
with the Government resolution issued by the State on
12.8.2013. The learned AGP further states that when the
Government resolution was holding the field and the terms
of the advertisement also were abundantly clear, the
respondent having participated in the selection process
pursuant to the advertisement could not thereafter turn
around and contend that the qualification required as per
WP 5824/15
- 4 -
the advertisement is improper and not as per Rules. A
person who has participated in the selection process
cannot subsequently challenge the said advertisement.
The learned AGP relies on the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489.
The learned AGP further submits that even the application
submitted by the respondent pursuant to the advertisement
was misleading. The respondent in the application
represented that he possesses the diploma when in fact he
does not possess. If he would have stated his real
qualification, the respondent would not have even been
held eligible to participate in the selection process.
4] Learned counsel for the respondent - original
applicant submits that the advertisement issued laying
down qualification as degree or diploma was not in
consonance with the Rules prevailing. As per Rules, the
certificate, which the respondent was possessing, was the
required qualification and if the advertisement
prescribed some other qualification than the one required
as per the Rules, then the qualification required as per
the Rules will have to be read into the said
WP 5824/15
- 5 -
advertisement. The learned counsel relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian
Institute of Technology & another v. Paras Nath Tiwari &
others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 670. The learned counsel
further submits that the State cannot issue resolution
contrary to the rules. For the said purpose, he relies
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab
Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh & others
reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1082. The learned
counsel further submits that after having participated in
the selection process, the respondent was selected.
5] Once having found that the respondent was
possessing necessary qualification as required by the
Rules, then there was no impediment to issue appointment
order to the present respondent. The Tribunal has not
committed any error in passing the impugned order.
6] With the assistance of the learned counsel for
the respective parties, we have gone through the judgment
delivered by the Tribunal so also have considered various
Government resolutions and the Rules.
7] There cannot be any dispute with the proposition
that the executive instructions issued in the shape of
WP 5824/15
- 6 -
Government resolutions cannot override the Rules framed,
which have a statutory flavour. The Rules as existing on
the date when the advertisement was issued did not
mandate a candidate applying for the post of Civil
Engineering Assistant to possess a degree or diploma.
Even a person possessing a certificate of Construction
Supervisor was qualified on the said date to apply.
However, the advertisement prescribed a higher
qualification that of diploma or degree. No doubt, the
respondent had participated in the selection process
pursuant to the advertisement and did not challenge the
terms of the advertisement prior to participating in the
selection process. We have also gone through the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian
Institute of Technology, referred to supra, which states
that if the advertisement had prescribed for some
different criteria than the one laid down in the Rules,
the criteria laid down in the Rules will have to be read
down in the advertisement.
8] We would have considered the case of the
respondent in this regard, however, the learned AGP has
placed on record the application filed by the present
WP 5824/15
- 7 -
respondent pursuant to the advertisement. In the said
application, the respondent had represented that he
possesses the diploma certificate and as per the
advertisement, he is qualified. It is fairly stated by
the learned counsel for the respondent that the
respondent does not possess the said qualification. In
case, the respondent had submitted the genuine
qualification, which he possessed in the application, he
would not have been called for participating in the
selection process. In the light of this fact, it would
not be possible to uphold the judgment of the Tribunal.
Naturally the other persons who were not possessing the
diploma or degree were precluded from participating in
the selection process for the post of Civil Engineering
Assistant in view of the terms laid down in the
advertisement and the respondent cannot take the
advantage of his own wrong i.e. of a wrong statement of
fact mentioned in the application suggesting that he is
possessing the diploma certificate.
9] In view of above, it would be appropriate to
adjust the equities as subsequently some changes must
have been undergone by executive instructions or the
WP 5824/15
- 8 -
Rules. It would not now be proper to direct re-
advertisement of all the posts as other persons are
appointed pursuant to the said advertisement and only two
posts from ST category are vacant as per the instructions
of the learned AGP. To adjust the equities, it would be
appropriate to direct re-advertisement of these two posts
reserved for ST category.
10] In the result, we pass the following order.
ig O R D E R
a] The impugned judgment and order dated
3.12.2014 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in Original Application
No.282/2014 is quashed and set aside to the
extent of directions contained in Clauses
(iii) and (iv) and also quashing the
communication dated 13.3.2014.
b] The petitioners shall re-advertise the two
posts from ST category of Civil Engineering
Assistant and shall call for the applications
from the persons possessing the qualification
as was required as per the Rules when the
earlier advertisement was issued. The said
WP 5824/15
- 9 -
process be done expeditiously.
c] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No
costs.
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
ndk/c1910165.doc
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!