Bombay High Court
Sushant Suresh Salvi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 28 September, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6631 OF 2017
Sushant Suresh Salvi, ]
Age : 35 Years, ]
R/at 201/A-2, Shreeji Residence, ]
Near Amrut Angan, Parsik Nagar, ]
Kalwa (West), Thane - 400 605. ] .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through the Principal Secretary, ]
General Administration Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
]
2. The Chairman / Secretary, ]
Maharashtra Public Service Commission,]
Maharashtra State, Mumbai. ]
Having office at M.T.N.L. Building, ]
Off. Cooperage Ground, Mumbai-400032. ]
]
3. The Director General and Inspector ]
General of Police, Maharashtra State, ]
Mumbai. ]
Having office at Old Council Hall, ]
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, ]
Mumbai - 400 039. ]
]
4. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through the Principal Secretary, ]
Home Department, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai - 400032. ]
]
5. Pankaj Rajaram Borse, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at A-5, Bandra Police Station Quarter, ]
Opp. Baba Hospital, Bandra (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 050. ]
1/48
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2017 01:51:55 :::
6. Prajenshil B. Baladar, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at 1/39, New Police Line, ]
Near G.P.O., Thane (West). ]
]
7. Satish A. Desai, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at New BDD Chawl No.9/76, ]
G.U. Road, Naigaon, Mumbai-400014. ]
]
8. Vinayak P. Jagtap, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at Ekta Society, Plot No.D-125, ]
Room No.4, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, ]
MHADA Colony, Pawar Nagar, Thane. ]
]
9. Sanjeevan Lou Rane, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at 605, 'A' Wing, Shivpratap Building, ]
Almeda Road, Chandanwadi, Thane (W). ]
]
10. Santosh S. Tanavade, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-9/24, Second Floor, ]
Tardeo Police Colony, Mumbai-400034. ]
]
11. Ankush R. Patil, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-8/26, 2nd Floor, ]
Tardeo Police Colony, ]
Tardeo, Mumbai - 400034. ]
]
12. Damodar D. Lad, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-1/202, Aparnaraj C.H.S., ]
Gholai Nagar, Kalwa (E), Thane. ]
]
13. Sachin M. Nikam, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
2/48
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2017 01:51:55 :::
R/at Flat No.G-302, Saptarang Akash, ]
Bhekraj Nagar, Fursungi, Pune-412308.]
]
14. Nilesh G. Paranjpe, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at Shirbhate Layout, Plot No.11, ]
By-pass Road, Near Chaitanya Colony, ]
Amravati - 444606. ]
]
15. Abdul Latif Sayyad Gous, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at 603/4, Ayman Palace, ]
Ashok Chouk, New Paccha Peth, ]
Solapur - 413 003. ]
]
16. Santosh Nana Waghchaure, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at G-1/706, Nilkanthdhara Apartment,]
Near Phadke Maidan, Adharwadi Road, ]
Lal Chauki, Kalyan (West). ]
]
17. Suryakant Manshing Thorat, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at Building No.7, Book No.3, ]
Worli Police Camp, Mumbai-400030. ]
]
18. Kushal R. Shimpi, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at Room No.6, Police Line, ]
Court Road, Chalisgaon, ]
Dist. Jalgaon - 424101. ] .... Respondents
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2172 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.6631 OF 2017
1. Devidas Laxman Damale, ]
Age : 29 Years, ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
R/at Room No.359, Sector 6, ]
Koper Khairane, New Mumbai-400709. ]
]
2. Nivrutti Dilip Shinde, ]
Age : 30 Years, ]
R/at B/15, Room No.2, ]
Vashi, New Mumbai - 400 703. ]
]
3. Ganesh Vishnu Avhad, ]
Age : 27 Years, ]
R/at Sable Nagar, Near Railway Colony, ]
Behind Building No.102, Kurla (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 024. ]
]
4. Deepak Subhash Tayde, ]
Age : 33 Years, ]
R/at 13/26, 'A' Wing, ]
Railway Police Quarters, ]
Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 075. ] .... Applicants
In the matter between
Sushant Suresh Salvi, ]
Age : 35 Years, ]
R/at 201/A-2, Shreeji Residence, ]
Near Amrut Angan, Parsik Nagar, ]
Kalwa (West), Thane - 400 605. ] .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through the Principal Secretary, ]
General Administration Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
]
2. The Chairman / Secretary, ]
Maharashtra Public Service Commission,]
Maharashtra State, Mumbai. ]
Having office at M.T.N.L. Building, ]
Off. Cooperage Ground, Mumbai-400032. ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
3. The Director General and Inspector ]
General of Police, Maharashtra State, ]
Mumbai. ]
Having office at Old Council Hall, ]
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, ]
Mumbai - 400 039. ]
]
4. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through the Principal Secretary, ]
Home Department, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai - 400032. ]
]
5. Pankaj Rajaram Borse, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at A-5, Bandra Police Station Quarter, ]
Opp. Baba Hospital, Bandra (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 050. ]
]
6. Prajenshil B. Baladar, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at 1/39, New Police Line, ]
Near G.P.O., Thane (West). ]
]
7. Satish A. Desai, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at New BDD Chawl No.9/76, ]
G.U. Road, Naigaon, Mumbai-400014. ]
]
8. Vinayak P. Jagtap, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at Ekta Society, Plot No.D-125, ]
Room No.4, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, ]
MHADA Colony, Pawar Nagar, Thane. ]
]
9. Sanjeevan Lou Rane, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at 605, 'A' Wing, Shivpratap Building, ]
Almeda Road, Chandanwadi, Thane (W). ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
10. Santosh S. Tanavade, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-9/24, Second Floor, ]
Tardeo Police Colony, Mumbai-400034. ]
]
11. Ankush R. Patil, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-8/26, 2 Floor,
nd
]
Tardeo Police Colony, ]
Tardeo, Mumbai - 400034. ]
]
12. Damodar D. Lad, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-1/202, Aparnaraj C.H.S., ]
Gholai Nagar, Kalwa (E), Thane. ]
]
13. Sachin M. Nikam, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at Flat No.G-302, Saptarang Akash, ]
Bhekraj Nagar, Fursungi, Pune-412308.]
]
14. Nilesh G. Paranjpe, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at Shirbhate Layout, Plot No.11, ]
By-pass Road, Near Chaitanya Colony, ]
Amravati - 444606. ]
]
15. Abdul Latif Sayyad Gous, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at 603/4, Ayman Palace, ]
Ashok Chouk, New Paccha Peth, ]
Solapur - 413 003. ]
]
16. Santosh Nana Waghchaure, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at G-1/706, Nilkanthdhara Apartment,]
Near Phadke Maidan, Adharwadi Road, ]
Lal Chauki, Kalyan (West). ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
17. Suryakant Manshing Thorat, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at Building No.7, Book No.3, ]
Worli Police Camp, Mumbai-400030. ]
]
18. Kushal R. Shimpi, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at Room No.6, Police Line, ]
Court Road, Chalisgaon, ]
Dist. Jalgaon - 424101. ] .... Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9242 OF 2017
1. Sandip Sudhakar Khade ]
Age : 35 Years, ]
R/at House No.74-A, Shivaji Nagar, ]
Near Omkar Apartment, ]
Shahpur, Vasind (W), Thane, Maharashtra ]
2. Rajendra Nandkumar Chavan, ]
Room No.31, Building No.19, ]
New Mahim Colony, Mahim, Mumbai. ]
]
3. Manurodh Natthusing Rathod, ]
Krushna Complex, Devki Building, ]
Room No.9, 2nd Floor, 'C' Wing, ]
Chinchapada Road, Katemanivali, ]
Kalyan (East). ] .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through the Principal Secretary, ]
General Administration Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
]
2. The Chairman / Secretary, ]
Maharashtra Public Service Commission,]
Maharashtra State, Mumbai. ]
Having office at M.T.N.L. Building, ]
Off. Cooperage Ground, Mumbai-400032. ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
3. The Director General and Inspector ]
General of Police, Maharashtra State, ]
Mumbai. ]
Having office at Old Council Hall, ]
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, ]
Mumbai - 400 039. ]
]
4. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through the Principal Secretary, ]
Home Department, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai - 400 032. ]
]
5. Pankaj Rajaram Borse, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at A-5, Bandra Police Station Quarters,]
Opp. Baba Hospital, Bandra (W), ]
Mumbai - 400050. ]
]
6. Prajenshil B. Baladar, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at 1/39, New Police Line, ]
Near G.P.O., Thane (West). ]
]
7. Satish A. Desai, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at New B.D.D. Chawl No.9/76, ]
G.U. Road, Naigaon, Mumbai-400014. ]
]
8. Vinayak Pundalik Jagtap, ]
Occu.: Police Naik, A.C.B., Thane, ]
R/of Ekta Society, Plot No.D-125, ]
Room No.4, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, ]
MHADA Colony, Pawar Nagar, Thane. ]
]
9. Sanjeevan Lou Rane, ]
Occu.: Police Naik, ]
Thane City Police Head Quarter, ]
R/of 605, "A" Wing, Shivpratap Bldg., ]
Almeda Road, Chandanwadi, Thane (W). ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
10. Santosh S. Tanavade, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-9/24, Second Floor, ]
Tardeo Police Colony, Mumbai-400034. ]
]
11. Ankush R. Patil, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-8/26, 2 Floor,
nd
]
Tardeo Police Colony, ]
Tardeo, Mumbai - 400034. ]
]
12. Damodar D. Lad, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at B-1/202, Aparnaraj C.H.S., ]
Gholai Nagar, Kalwa (E), Thane. ]
]
13. Sachin M. Nikam, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at Flat No.G-302, Saptarang Akash, ]
Bhekraj Nagar, Fursungi, Pune-412308.]
]
14. Nilesh G. Paranjpe, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at Shirbhate Layout, Plot No.11, ]
By-pass Road, Near Chaitanya Colony, ]
Amravati - 444606. ]
]
15. Abdul Latif Sayyad Gous, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at 603/4, Ayman Palace, ]
Ashok Chouk, New Paccha Peth, ]
Solapur - 413 003. ]
]
16. Santosh Nana Waghchaure, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at G-1/706, Nilkanthdhara Apartment,]
Near Phadke Maidan, Adharwadi Road, ]
Lal Chauki, Kalyan (West). ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
17. Suryakant Manshing Thorat, ]
Occ.: Police Constable, ]
R/at Building No.7, Book No.3, ]
Worli Police Camp, Mumbai-400030. ]
]
18. Kushal R. Shimpi, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
R/at Room No.6, Police Line, ]
Court Road, Chalisgaon, ]
Dist. Jalgaon - 424101. ]
]
19. Balasaheb Manohar Doke, ]
Police Constable, ]
Tardeo Traffic Division, Tardeo, ]
Mumbai - 400007. ]
]
20. Pundlik K. Joshilkar, ]
Assistance of Inspector, ]
Wireless Section, ]
Superintendent of Police Office, ]
Kolhapur. ]
]
21. Yogita V. Salunkhe, ]
Occ.: Police Naik, ]
Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune, ]
R/at 1315, Kasba Peth, ]
Pratibha Complex, ]
Near Surya Hospital, Pune. ]
]
22. Adimath Gulab Palve, ]
PC 1744, New Police Line, ]
Senapati Bapat Road, ]
Near S.L. Raheja Hospital, Mahim, ]
Mumbai - 400 016. ]
]
23. Date B. Gethe, ]
PC, Kranti Chowk Police Colony, ]
H. No.14/135, Aurangabad. ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
24. Sachin R. Choudhary, ]
PC, 3/304, Chintamani, ]
Gajanan Nagar, Thane-Belapur Rd., ]
Vitava, Dist. Thane. ]
]
25. Harika V. Bhosale, ]
PC, C/39, 3 Floor, Bandra Police Line, ]
rd
Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050. ]
]
26. Motilal D. Patil, ]
PC, Plot No.3, Kanchan Nagar, ]
Near Vishal Provision, Jalgaon. ]
]
27. Deepak Ware, ]
Pleasant Park C.H.S., ]
'F' Wing, 103, Ground Floor, ]
Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane. ]
]
28. Dharmendra T. Bansode, ]
Byculla Police Quarters, ]
Old Building, Room No.23, ]
Ground Floor, Hansraj Lane, ]
Byculla (E), Mumbai - 400027. ]
]
29. Pandit Pawar, ]
Adarsh Nagar, Shrirampur, ]
Tal. Pusad, Dist. Amravati. ] .... Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10150 OF 2017
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through the Principal Secretary, ]
Home Department, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai - 400 032. ]
]
2. Principal Secretary, ]
General Administration Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
3. The Director General and Inspector ]
General of Police, Maharashtra State, ]
Mumbai. ]
Having office at Old Council Hall, ]
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, ] .... Petitioners
Mumbai - 400 039. ] (Org. Respondents)
Versus
1. Pankaj Rajaram Borse, ]
Age : 36 Years, ]
Working as Police Constable, ]
D.N. Nagar Police Station, ]
Andheri, Mumbai. ]
R/of A-5, Bandra Police Quarters, ]
Opp. Bhabha Hospital, Bandra (W), ]
Mumbai - 400 050. ]
]
2. Prajneshil Bhimrao Baladar, ]
Age : 42 Years, ]
Working as Police Naik, ]
Anti-Encroachment Department, ]
Nitin Company, Thane (W). ]
R/of 1/39, New Police Line, ]
Near G.P.O., Thane (West). ]
]
3. Satish Ananda Desai, ]
Age : 36 Years, ]
Working as Police Constable, ]
Mumbai Sagari Police Station, ]
R/of New B.D.D. Chawl No.9/76, ]
G.U. Road, Naigaon, Mumbai-400014. ]
]
4. Vinayak Pundalik Jagtap, ]
Age : 41 Years, ]
Working as Police Naik, A.C.B., Thane, ]
R/of Ekta Society, Plot No.D-125, ]
Room No.4, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, ]
MHADA Colony, Pawar Nagar, Thane. ]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
5. Sanjeevan Lou Rane, ]
Age : 37 Years, ]
Working as Police Naik, ]
Thane City Police Head Quarter, ] .... (Respondent
R/of 605, "A" Wing, Shivpratap Bldg., ] Nos.1 to 5
Almeda Road, Chandanwadi, Thane (W). ] (Org. Applicants)
]
6. The Chairman / Secretary, ]
Maharashtra Public Service Commission,]
Maharashtra State, Mumbai. ]
Having office at M.T.N.L. Building, ]
Off. Cooperage Ground, Mumbai-400032. ] .... Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Dere for the Petitioner in WP/6631/2017.
Mr. Sandeep Dere, i/by Mr. Amit D. Hire, for the Petitioners in
WP/9242/2017.
Mr. C.P. Yadav, A.G.P., for the Petitioners-State in
WP/10150/2017.
Mr. Vishal Thadani, A.G.P., for Respondent No.6-M.P.S.C. in
WP/10150/2017.
Mr. S.A. Sawant, a/w. Mr. H.S. Kadam, i/by Mr. H.V. Kode, for
Respondent No.13 in WP/6631/2017 and for Respondent Nos.13,
21, 24, 26 and 29 in WP/9242/2017.
Mr. P.S. Dani, Senior Counsel, i/by Mr. Mohit P. Jadhav, for the
Applicants in CAW/2172/2017 in WP/6631/2017.
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.
RESERVED ON : 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
JUDGMENT : [Per Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard
finally at the stage of admission itself.
3. The Petitioners herein are challenging the Judgment
and Order dated 27th September 2016 in Original Application
No.695 of 2016 and connected Original Application No.856 of
2016 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai, thereby allowing the said applications and further
holding that the upper age-limit for the 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination, 2016' for selection to the post of "Police
Sub-Inspector" has to be in accordance with the State
Government Resolution dated 25th April 2016.
4. The first two Writ Petitions, bearing Writ Petition
No.6631 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.9242 of 2017, are
preferred by the candidates, who have been prejudicially affected
on account of the interpretation of the said Government
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
Resolution, (for short, "G.R."), by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"),
as they are now loosing their chance for the promotion to the said
post of "Police Sub-Inspector", though they have obtained the
qualifying marks; whereas, the third Writ Petition, bearing
No.10150 of 2017, is preferred by the State Government itself,
being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal increasing the upper
age-limit for the said post.
5. The necessary legal question, therefore, arising for our
consideration in all these three Writ Petitions is 'the
interpretation and application of the Government Resolution
dated 25th April 2016 issued by the State of Maharashtra'.
6. Before we enter into the legal aspects of the question
raised for our consideration in these Writ Petitions, it is necessary
to mention few facts, which can be stated briefly as under :
7. The Government of Maharashtra, through its Principal
Secretary, issued an advertisement on 27th June 2016 to fill up
"822" posts of "Police Sub-Inspector" through 'Limited
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
Departmental Competitive Examination' under Rule 3(b) of Police
Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, (for short, "Rules,
1995"). The said Recruitment Rules have been framed by the
State of Maharashtra in exercise of the power conferred by clause
(b) of Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra
Police Act, 2014), (for short, "Act, 1951"), regulating recruitment
to the post of "Police Sub-Inspector" in the Police Force under the
Home Department of Government of Maharashtra. As per Rule
3(b) of the said Rules, the upper age-limit for the selection of
"Police Sub-Inspector" by way of 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination' conducted by the Maharashtra Public
Service Commission is "35" and "40" years, respectively, for the
'Open Category' and 'Reserved Category' candidates.
8. Respondent Nos.5 to 18 herein, however, relying on
the G.R. dated 25th April 2016, issued by the General
Administration Department, (for short, "G.A.D."), increasing the
age for competitive examination conducted for the nomination by
direct recruitment, upto 38 years and 43 years, for 'open' and
'reserved' category candidates, respectively, sought to appear for
the said competitive examination. Under the apprehension that
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
their applications might be rejected by the Maharashtra Public
Service Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "MPSC"), on the
count that they were age-barred, they approached the Tribunal by
filing the two Original Applications, bearing Nos.695 of 2016 and
856 of 2016, seeking permission to appear for the competitive
examination.
9. These Original Applications were resisted by
Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 therein by filing their affidavits-in-
reply, contending, inter-alia, that G.R. dated 25th April, 2016,
extending the age-limit upto "38" and "43" years, respectively,
for the 'open' and 'reserved' category candidates is not
applicable to this examination, as the said G.R. is applicable
only for 'Direct Recruitment' and, that too, in other services and
not to the services in 'Police Force'. It was submitted that the
present recruitment was undertaken as per Rule 3(b) of the
Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, which clearly
provides the age-limit for the 'open' category candidates as "35"
years for 'Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations'
and "40" years for the 'reserved' category candidates. It was
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
further submitted that when the Rules, 1995, framed by the
Government, are occupying the field, there was no question of
applying any executive order issued by way of G.R. dated 25 th
April, 2016, or, the said G.R. overriding, or, substituting the
said Rules. It was categorically stated that G.R. dated 25th April,
2016 is applicable only to those candidates who appear for the
competitive examinations at the time of entry level in the
Government Service, and it cannot be made applicable to 'in-
service' candidates appearing for examination conducted for
promotion or selection on the basis of 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examinations'.
10. In the present case, it was submitted that the
recruitment was to fill up the posts of "Police Sub-Inspector" by
promotion on the basis of 'Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination' and, hence, the G.R. dated 25th April, 2016, by
which the age-limit was extended to "38" and "43" years,
respectively, for the 'open' and 'reserved' category candidates,
cannot be made applicable. The Applicants were, therefore, not
entitled to get benefit of the said G.R. As the Applicants were
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
above the age of "35" and "40" years, respectively, which was
the age-limit prescribed in the said advertisement, they are not
eligible to apply for the post. Hence, their Applications need to
be rejected.
11. Respondent No.2 herein, viz. MPSC, also resisted
these Applications by their separate affidavit-in-reply,
confirming and reiterating the above-said stand taken by the
State Government and the G.A.D., submitting that vide G.R.
dated 25th April, 2016, the Government had increased the
upper age-limit by "5" years in respect of 'Competitive
Examinations' of those posts, whose earlier upper age-limit was
"33" and "38" years, respectively, for 'open' and 'reserved'
category candidates. However, as per the Recruitment Rules,
1995, framed for recruitment to the post of "Police Sub-
Inspector", the upper age-limit in respect of candidates to be
recruited through the 'Limited Departmental Competitive
Examinations' , was already enhanced and fixed at "35" and
"40" years, respectively. Therefore, G.R. dated 25 th April, 2016
is not applicable to the present examination, which was for
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
recruitment to the post of "Police Sub-Inspector", through the
'Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations'.
Accordingly, the upper age-limit was fixed at "35" and "40"
years, respectively by the MPSC and it is correct. Further, it
was urged that G.R. dated 25th April, 2016 was applicable only
for initial entry in the Government Service and it cannot be
made applicable to 'in-service' candidates, who are promoted
through the Departmental Examinations. In respect of these
candidates, it was submitted that, as per P.S.I. Recruitment
Rules, 1995, the age-limit was already enhanced to "35" and
"40" years and in such circumstances, there was no further
scope for enhancing the age-limit to "38" or "43" years, as
stipulated in the G.R. dated 25th April, 2016. The MPSC also,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of these Original Applications.
12. The Tribunal, however, vide its order dated 10th
August 2016, granted interim relief to the Applicants by
permitting them to appear for the competitive examinations,
interpreting G.R. dated 25th April 2016, issued by the G.A.D.,
State of Maharashtra, increasing the age upto "38" and "43"
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
years, respectively, for the 'open' and 'reserved' category
candidates, in their favour and relying upon the decision of this
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ananda and Anr.,
in Writ Petition No.6212 of 2011 dated 9th November 2011,
wherein the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold
that,
'The decision of the General Administration
Department would be binding on all other
Departments of the State Government, including the
Public Works Department'.
13. The distinction tried to be made on behalf of the State
Government and also on behalf of the MPSC as regards the
appointments to be made on the basis of 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination' and the appointments by nomination
on 'Direct Recruitment', was not accepted by the Tribunal. The
argument advanced by the Respondents therein that increase in
the age-limit as per G.R. dated 25th April 2016 was applicable only
for 'Direct Recruitment' and not for 'in-service' candidates, was
thus rejected.
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
14. Their further argument that G.R. dated 25 th April 2016
cannot override the Rules framed under the Police Sub-Inspector
(Recruitment) Rules, 1995, also was rejected by the Tribunal by
placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
O.P. Lather and Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar Kakkar, (2001) 3 SCC 110 ,
holding that,
"Though the Rules framed under the Proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be amended
by administrative instructions, the Government
can fill the gaps and supplement the Rules."
15. It was held that,
"In the State of Maharashtra, the upper age-limit for
direct recruitment has been raised from time to
time by issuing Government Resolutions for
recruitment to various posts. Evidently, such
relaxation in upper age-limit has been considered as
supplementing the existing provisions of the Rules,
which is correct, as relaxation in age does not cause
any prejudice to any one, unlike the case where
upper age-limit may be sought to be reduced."
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
16. It was further held that,
"Generally, the age-limit for 'in-service' candidate is
higher vis-a-vis candidates appearing in direct
recruitment."
17. For this proposition, the reliance was placed on the
decision of this Court in the case of Anil M. Nimbhore Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 824, holding that,
"Raising of upper age-limit should be considered in
the background of fast developing and changing
social scenario".
18. Accordingly, it was held that,
"The Government Resolution dated 25 th April 2017,
which has been issued considering such facts, needs
to be made applicable not only for 'Direct
Recruitment', but also for 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination', where the age-limit
should be more than the age-limit for 'Direct
Recruitment'."
19. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, Respondent Nos.5
to 18 in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2017, who had approached the
Tribunal, were, by the interim order dated 10th August 2016,
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
permitted to appear for the 'Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination, 2016' for selection to the post of "Police Sub-
Inspector", holding that they were not age-barred in view of the
G.R. dated 25th April 2016.
20. This interim order was, subsequently, confirmed by
the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 27th September 2016,
thereby allowing the Original Applications filed by these
Respondents, reiterating its earlier reasoning and findings.
21. It is a matter of record that, in pursuance of the
interim relief granted to Respondent Nos.5 to 18, they appeared
for the examination conducted by the MPSC. They have now
cleared the said examination and are, therefore, expecting the
selection orders and the orders for training.
22. Being aggrieved thereof, the Petitioners have
approached this Court. According to learned counsel Shri.
Sandeep Dere for the Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.6631 of
2017 and 9242 of 2017, the Petitioners are now, on account of
this interpretation given to the G.R. dated 25 th April 2016 by the
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
Tribunal, loosing their chance of getting selected to the post of
"Police Sub-Inspector". The interpretation given by the Tribunal
to the said G.R. is not at all correct and legal on two counts. In the
first place, it is submitted that G.R. dated 25 th April 2016, cannot
override the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995
framed under the Maharashtra Police Act; and, secondly, the said
G.R., otherwise, is also applicable only to the 'Direct Recruitment'
i.e. for the first time entry in Government service and not to 'in-
service' recruitment by way of 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination'.
23. In Writ Petition No.10150 of 2017, learned A.G.P. Shri
C.P. Yadav for the State Government and learned A.G.P. Shri
Vishal Thadani for MPSC have supported these Petitioners by
submitting that, as per the settled position of law, the G.R., which
is an executive order, cannot override the Statutory Rules. In this
case, when Statutory Rule 3(b) clearly provides the age-limit for
the recruitment to the post of "Police Sub-Inspector", there is no
scope for filling up the gaps or supplementing the Rules.
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
24. It is further submitted that G.R. dated 25 th April,
2016 being applicable only for recruitment at entry level in
Government Service, the Tribunal has committed an error in
applying the said G.R. to the 'in-service' recruitment by way of
'Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations'. According
to learned AGP, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal
needs to be quashed and set aside, so that further process of
selection and sending the selected candidates for training can
be undertaken.
25. On behalf of Respondent No.13 in Writ Petition
No.6631 of 2017 and Respondent Nos.13, 21, 24, 26 and 27 in
Writ Petition No.9242 of 2017, who were the original
Applicants before the Tribunal, learned counsel Shri S.A.
Sawant, has supported the impugned Judgment and Order of
the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Writ Petition Nos.6631 of
2017 and 9242 of 2017 are not maintainable, as the Petitioners
therein were not party to the Original Applications filed before
the Tribunal and, therefore, the Petitioners have no locus to file
the Petitions. According to learned counsel Shri Sawant, as the
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
Petitioners have participated in the entire 'Selection Process',
now they cannot challenge the 'Selection Process', merely
because they have not become successful therein. To
substantiate this submission, he has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ashok Kumar and Anr.
Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., in Civil Appeal No.9042 of 2012,
dated 21st October, 2016, wherein it was held that,
"When the candidates have appeared and
participated in the selection process, then they
cannot subsequently turn round and contend that
the selection process was unfair and/or there was
lacuna therein, merely because the result is not
palatable."
26. A submission is also advanced that, after the results
were declared, the Petitioner has filed Original Application
No.406 of 2017 before the Tribunal to direct the MPSC to
declare the total marks obtained by him to be "255", as against
the allotted marks of "253" in this examination. However, the
said Original Application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal
vide its order dated 12th May 2017. According to learned
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
counsel for Respondent No.13, therefore, as this Writ Petition
is filed only to obstruct the 'Selection Process' and the said
obstruction is raised by an unsuccessful candidate, who has
participated in the 'Selection Process', the Writ Petition needs
to be dismissed. According to him, therefore, the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal holding G.R. dated 25 th April,
2016 as applicable to this 'Selection Process' being perfectly
legal and valid for the reasons stated in the impugned
judgment, no interference is warranted therein in these Writ
Petitions.
27. In the light of these submissions advanced on behalf
of the Petitioners and the Respondents, as stated earlier, the
only legal issue necessarily arising for our consideration in
these Writ Petitions is, 'the applicability and interpretation of
the G.R. dated 25th April, 2016', whereby the age-limit is
enhanced to "38" and '43" years, respectively, for the 'open' and
'reserved' category candidates for entry into Government
service. As this G.R. is issued under the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Provisions of Upper Age-Limit for Recruitment by
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
Nomination) Rules, 1986, it is necessary to reproduce the
relevant Rules ;
"No.SRV.1080/15-M/XII, dated 28 th January
1986 - In exercise of the powers conferred by the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India,
the governor of Maharashtra is hereby pleased to
make the following rules, regulating the upper age-
limit for recruitment by nomination in Class I, Class
II, Class III and Class IV posts in the Maharashtra
Civil Services, namely :-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Provision of Upper Age-Limit
for Recruitment by Nomination) Rules,
1986.
(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force
on the 17th November 1980.
2. In these rules, unless the context requires
otherwise -
(a) "Class IV posts" means posts which
are specifically classified as Class IV
posts and such other unclassified
non-gazetted posts the maxima of
the scales of which are equal to or
less than Rs.435;
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
(b) "Class III posts" means all non-
gazetted posts other than Class IV
posts;
(c) "Class II posts" means all gazetted
posts other than Class I posts;
(d) "Class I posts" means posts which
are specifically included in Class I
service and those unclassified posts,
the maxima of the scale of which are
above Rs.1,150;
(e) "Service" means a Civil Service of the
State;
(f) Words and expressions used in these
rules but not defined shall have the
same meaning respectively assigned
to them in the Maharashtra Civil
Service Rules.
3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any
rule, order or instrument for the time being
in force relating to recruitment by
nomination to any posts, cadre or service in
Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV, the
upper age-limit for the purpose of
recruitment by nomination to the said post,
cadre or service in Class I, Class II, Class III
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
or Class IV shall be [30] years and in respect
of persons belonging to Backward Classes, it
shall be [35] years :
Provided that, where a recruitment rule for
any particular post, cadre or service in Class
I, Class II, Class III or Class IV provides the
upper age-limit above [30] years, then the
upper age-limit shall be as prescribed in that
recruitment rule for that particular post,
relaxable by 5 years in respect of persons
belonging to Backward Classes.
4. The upper age-limit for admission to
competitive examinations held by the
Maharashtra Public Service Commission for
recruitment to various posts and service
shall be [30] years and in respect of persons
belonging to Backward Classes, it shall be
[35] years."
28. These Rules, thus, make it clear that they are issued
in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution and, secondly, these Rules are for
regulating the upper age-limit for recruitment by nomination.
The words, "recruitment by nomination" are of significance, as
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
they imply that these Rules are applicable for 'Direct
Recruitment' at the entry level.
29. The age-limit prescribed in these Rules was
enhanced by the State Government vide G.R. dated 28th October
1992, which is produced at page No.107. It gives clear
reference to the earlier Rules dated 28th January 1986, as
referred above. The very title of this G.R. dated 28 th October
1992 states that, it is for 'enhancement of the age-limit for
entry into Government service'. It is stated in this G.R. that the
age-limit of "28" and "30" years, which was fixed, respectively,
for 'open' and 'reserved' category candidates by G.R. 28th
January 1986, is now enhanced to "30" and "35" years,
respectively, for 'open' and 'reserved' category candidates, for
entry into Government service.
30. The age-limit prescribed in this G.R. dated 28th
October 1992 is further enhanced by G.R. dated 27 th August
2004. This G.R. is produced at page No.106. It makes reference
to the earlier G.R. dated 28th October 1992. The very title of this
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
G.R. is also for "enhancement of the age-limit for entry into
Government service". According to this G.R., the age-limit for
the candidates of 'open' category is enhanced to "33" years and
of 'reserved' category was enhanced to "38" years respectively,
for their appointment, thereby meaning entry into the
Government service.
31. The latest G.R. issued in this respect is that of 25 th
April 2016. This G.R. is also titled as "for enhancement of the
age-limit for entry into Government service". This G.R. gives a
reference to the earlier G.R. dated 28th October 1992 and it
further states that the age-limit prescribed in the G.R. dated
28th October 1992 of "30" years and "35" years, respectively,
for 'open' and 'reserved' category candidates was enhanced to
"33" and "38" years, respectively, by G.R. dated 17 th August
2004 and now in view of the demand received from the various
quarters, the said age-limit is now enhanced to "38" years and
"43" years, respectively, for entry into Government service.
32. Thus, this G.R. dated 25th April 2016, which is issued
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
in pursuance of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Provision of
Upper Age-Limit for Recruitment by Nomination) Rules, 1986,
framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,
abundantly make it clear that these Rules, which were for
'recruitment by nomination' are, therefore, applicable, as stated
in this G.R. itself, for 'recruitment for entry into Government
service'.
33. As a matter of fact, all these three GRs, which are,
chronologically, dated 28th October 1992, 17th August 2004 and
25th April, 2016, make it clear that, these GRs were issued
under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Provision of Upper Age-
Limit for Recruitment by Nomination) Rules, 1986, framed by
the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by
the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. By these GRs,
the age-limit of "28" and "30" years, respectively, is enhanced
to "30" and "35" years; thereafter, to "33" and "38" years; and,
lastly, to "38" and "43" years. However, this enhancement in
the age-limit is only for 'Direct Recruitment' at the time of
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
initial entry in Government service . The very title of these GRs
and their opening paragraphs make it clear that these GRs
were issued for fixing the upper age-limit for entry into
Government service. Hence, it necessarily follows that these
GRs cannot be made applicable to the 'in-service' candidates,
whose "selection" is made by 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examinations'.
34. In this case, admittedly, the recruitment in question
was only for the 'in-service' candidates by way of their
promotion to the post of "Police Sub-Inspector" through
'Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations'. The
advertisement issued for the said recruitment, which is
produced at page No.36 in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2017, is
more than clear to that effect. It states that this 'Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination' is being held for the
post of "Police Sub-Inspector" for selection from those who are
working in the Police Department as 'Assistant Police
Inspector', 'Police Constable', 'Police Naik', or, 'Police Constable'.
Therefore, it is for 'in-service' candidates for their promotion by
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
'Limited Departmental Competitive Examination' and not for
entry into Government service by way of 'Direct Recruitment'.
Therefore, G.R. dated 25th April, 2016 cannot be made
applicable to this recruitment.
35. In this respect, it would be useful to refer to Section 5
of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which provides for
'Constitution of Police Force'. Clause (b) of the said section
provides that, 'the recruitment, pay, allowances and other
conditions of service of the members of the Police Force shall be
such, as may, from time to time, be determined by the State
Government by general or special order'.
36. In pursuance of Section 5(b) of the Act, the State of
Maharashtra has, from time to time, framed the Rules for
recruitment to the 'Police Force'. The relevant Rules are "The
Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995", which are
lastly amended on 9th March, 1999. Rule 3 thereof provides
'three modes for appointment to the post of "Police Sub-
Inspector". Rule 3(a) provides for 'appointment by way of
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
promotion from suitable persons on the basis of seniority'. Rule
3(b) provides for 'selection of persons working in 'Police Force'
on the basis of result of the 'Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination' held by the Commission for appointment to the
post of "Police Sub-Inspector". Rule 3(c) provides for
'appointment by nominations on the basis of Competitive
Examinations held by the Commission and for appointment to
which candidates shall not be less than 19 years and/or more
than 28 years'.
37. As regards appointment by promotion, under clause
(a), or, by selection by way of 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination', as provided in clause (b), the age-
limit is prescribed to be not more than "35" years for 'open'
category candidate, with relaxation of "5" years for candidates
belonging to 'reserved' category.
38. In this case, as, admittedly, the recruitment is made
under Rule 3(b) by way of promotion of 'in-service' police
persons, like 'Assistant Sub-Inspector', 'Head Constable', 'Police
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
Naik' and 'Police Constable', on the basis of the results of
'Limited Departmental Competitive Examination', it follows
that the prescribed age-limit is not more than "35" years for
'open' category candidates, with relaxation of "5" years for
candidates belonging to 'reserved' category.
39. Now the question for consideration is, 'whether the
G.R. dated 25th April, 2016, issued by the Government can be
made applicable to this recruitment of "Police Sub-Inspector"
from in-service candidates by 'Limited Departmental
Competitive Examinations'; especially, when specific Rules are
framed for their promotion prescribing certain age-limit?'
40. In our considered opinion, law in this respect is fairly
well settled, as laid down by the Apex Court in its various
judgments, including the judgment in the case ofVijay Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, AWS (ALL) 2004-7-30, relied upon by
learned counsel for the Petitioners herein. In this judgment,
after taking review of all its earlier decisions, the Apex Court
has categorically held, in paragraph No.4, as follows :-
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
"It is settled legal position that executive
instructions cannot amend or supersede the
statutory Rules or add something therein, nor
the orders be issued in contravention of the
statutory rules for the reason that an
administrative instruction is not a statutory rule
nor does it have any force of law; while statutory
Rules have full force of law provided the same
are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act".
41. In paragraph No.5 of this judgment, the Apex Court
was pleased to reiterate that,
"Even if there is conflict between the executive
instructions and the Rules framed under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the
Rules will prevail".
42. It is pertinent to note that, in this judgment of the
Apex Court, exactly the same issue, which is raised in the
present Writ Petitions, was agitated. 'The U.P. Recruitment of
Service (Age-Limit) Rules, 1972' were prescribing the age-limit
for 'in-service' recruitment to the post of "Police Sub-Inspector",
like the Police Sub Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, in the
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
present case; whereas Government order or G.R. issued in
pursuance of the Rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution was prescribing different age-limit. Hence,
the issue raised before the Apex Court was, 'whether the age-
limit prescribed by the Rules framed under the Police Act or
the age-limit prescribed by the G.R. issued in pursuance of the
Rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution will prevail' and it was categorically held that, the
Rules framed under the Police Act will prevail.
43. In paragraph No.24, the Supreme Court rejected the
contention that, as the U.P. Government Service Criteria for
Recruitment by Promotion Rules 1994 had been framed under
the Proviso to Article 309, they will override the orders passed
under the Police Act. It was held so, in spite of the fact that Rule
3 thereof provided for overriding effect on all other laws. It was
further held that :-
"That Police Act 1861 is a complete Code insofar
as police personnel are concerned. Service
conditions which are referable to the Act are not
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
replaced by general service conditions for other
civilian employees under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India...... Police force has a special
significance in the administration of State and the
intent of the framers of the Constitution to
empower the State Government to make Rules
therefor has its due significance rather than being
governed under a general omnibus Rule framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution. When there
is a special provision, unless there is a specific
repeal of the existing law, question of an implied
repeal would not arise........The police force are to
be governed by the provisions of the Police Act
and no exception can be taken thereto".
44. In paragraph No.50 of the judgment, it was held that,
inconvenience is not a decisive factor in such matters. The
Apex Court further observed that, the Court has no power to
ignore the statutory provisions to relieve what it considers a
distress resulting from its operation. A Statute must be given
effect to whether a Court likes the result or not. In paragraph
No.51 of the judgment, the Apex Court was further pleased to
confirm that, hardship to any individual cannot be a ground of
not giving the effect to the statutory provisions.
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
45. In this Judgment, the Apex Court was pleased to
uphold the law laid down in its earlier decision of Chandra
Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakuntala Shukla, AIR 2002 SC 2322, by
observing that, 'police forces are to be guided by the provisions
of the Police Act and no exception can be taken thereto'.
46. In this Judgment, while dealing with the provisions
of U.P. Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by
Promotion) Rules, 1994, framed under the Proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution, it was held as not applicable as the field
stood occupied by a Government Order dated 5th November
1965 issued under Section 2 of the Act, 1861. Service
conditions referable to the Act, 1861 could not be replaced by
'General Service Conditions' framed for 'Other Civilian
Employees'.
47. In the ultimate analysis, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was pleased to hold that,
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
"Keeping in mind the interest of society and the
nature of service, for which the appointments
are to be made, no fault can be found if the
Service Conditions for the Police Officers
prescribes a lesser age-limit than the age-limit
fixed for recruitment to other Civil Services.
Such distinction in the age-limit for recruitment
to 'Police Force' and for other Civil Services does
not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, nor it offends any other provision
contained in Part III of the Constitution."
48. This judgment of the Apex Court, thus, makes it very
clear that statutory provisions, either contained in the Police
Act and in the Rules framed thereunder, will prevail over the
executive orders issued by way of G.R. in pursuance of the
Rules framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
In this case, the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules,
1995 are framed under the Maharashtra Police Act and they
prescribe the age-limit of "35" and "40" years for appointment
to the post of "Police Sub-Inspector" by selection of persons
working in the 'Police Force'. As a result, this age-limit will
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
prevail over the G.R. dated 25th April, 2016, which is issued in
pursuance of the Rules framed under Proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution, enhancing the age-limit to "38" and "43"
years. In this case, when the field governing the recruitment to
post of "Police Sub-Inspector" is already occupied by the Police
Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, there is no question
of invoking the G.R. dated 25th April, 2016, issued in pursuance
of the Rules framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution. There are also no lacunae to be filed by invocation
of said G.R., when the Rules are very clear to that effect. Hence,
the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of O.P. Lather
(Supra) by learned counsel for Respondent No.13 herein,
cannot be of any help.
49. As regards the submission of learned counsel for
Respondent No.13 that the G.R. issued by G.A.D. is binding on
all the Departments of the State Government and in support of
which reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Ananda, (Writ
Petition No.6212 of 2011), we have to state that, only when
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
there is no statutory provision, or, Legislation, or, Rules
governing the field, the G.R. issued by G.A.D. can be binding.
However, in the instant case, the field is already occupied by
the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, framed
under the Maharashtra Police Act, and, therefore, as held
above, the G.R., which is an executive fiat, issued in pursuance
of the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, cannot
override the statutory provisions in the form of Rules herein.
50. Thus, in the first place, G.R. dated 25th April, 2016,
is applicable only for 'Direct Recruitments' at the initial entry in
the Government service. It is not applicable to selection of 'in-
service' candidates by way of promotion, as in the present case.
Secondly, having regard to the nature and condition of the
Service Conditions of the 'Police Force', as the Police Sub-
Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, framed under the
Maharashtra Police Act, prescribe the age-limit for
appointment to the post of "Police Sub-Inspector" by 'Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination' and these Rules
prescribe the age-limit of "35" and "40" years, respectively,
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
therefore, the G.R. dated 25th April, 2016, which is an executive
fiat and issued in pursuance of the Proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution, cannot override these Rules, which are statutory.
Hence, on both these grounds, the impugned Judgment and
Order of the Tribunal, applying this G.R. dated 25th April, 2016,
for the present recruitment process, cannot be called as legal
and valid. Hence, it needs to be set aside.
51. However, before doing that, it would be necessary to
advert to the two submissions advanced by learned counsel for
Respondent No.1. The first submission is that the Petitioners
herein are unsuccessful candidates and, therefore, they cannot
challenge the 'Selection Process'. However, as rightly
submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners, Petitioners
are not challenging the 'Selection Process', but they are only
challenging the interpretation and application of G.R. dated 25 th
April, 2016.
52. As regards the next submission that the Petitioner-
Suresh Sushant Salvi has filed Original Application No.406 of
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
2017 seeking enhancement of his marks, which came to be
rejected and, therefore, he cannot challenge the 'Selection
Process' in this Petition, it is pertinent to note that the said
Original Application was totally for different purpose, which
was for enhancing the marks, and, therefore, dismissal of the
Original Application cannot have any bearing on this Writ
Petition.
53. Moreover, in this case, it is not only the Petitioners
who are challenging the application and interpretation of G.R.
dated 25th April 2016, but, even the State Government and
M.P.S.C. are also challenging the application and interpretation
of the said G.R., as made by the Tribunal. Hence, once it is
evident that interpretation made by the Tribunal is not correct,
even if not at the instance of these Petitioners, but, at the
instance of the State Government, we have to set aside the
impugned order of the Tribunal.
54. To sum up, therefore, we have no hesitation in
holding that these Writ Petitions need to be allowed by setting
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
aside the impugned Judgment and Order of the Tribunal.
55. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are allowed.
56. It is held that, G.R. dated 25th April 2016, enhancing
the age-limit to "38" and "43" years for 'open' and 'reserved'
category candidates is not applicable for the present
recruitment of 'in-service' candidates to the post of "Police Sub-
Inspector" by way of 'Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination'.
57. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
58. In view of the above, Civil Application No.2172 of
2017, pending in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2017, having become
infructuous, it also stands disposed off.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
WP-6631-9242-10150-17.doc
