Bombay High Court
Sachin Govindrao Bawane vs The State Of Maharashtra,Thr. Its ... on 20 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
19wp3056.2021.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3056 OF 2021
SACHIN GOVINDRAO BAWANE
VS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUDICIARY AND
OTHERS
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for petitioner
Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 3/State
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2021.
Heard.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
passed on 27.04.2020 by Maharashtra Administration
Tribunal (MAT) rejecting the contempt application filed
by the petitioner.
3. The contempt application was filed by the
petitioner because according to the petitioner, the
Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) did not
reconsider the case of the petitioner as regards the
consideration to be given for relaxing the norms set for
fixing cut off marks in interview under the Rules of the
Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of
Procedure, 2014 (for short "the Rules of 2014").
4. According to the petitioner, MAT had
19wp3056.2021.odt
directed the MPSC to take into account the Rules of
2014 and also direction issued in the office
memorandum dated 29.12.2005 and as the MPSC did
not reconsider the issue by taking into account the office
memorandum dated 29.12.2005 read with the relevant
rules of the Rules of 2014, the MPSC was in contempt of
the directions given by the MAT.
5. The MAT, however, found that the MPSC was
not in contempt. It observed that the discretion
conferred upon the MPSC was exercised by the MPSC in
accordance with law and that in its opinion while taking
the impugned decision on reconsideration, the MPSC
had considered the Rule 9(ix) of the Rules of 2014 and
also clause 22 of the memorandum issued by the
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). On these
grounds, the MAT dismissed the contempt application.
6. We have gone through the judgment passed
by the MAT directing the MPSC to reconsider the issue,
the order passed by the MPSC upon consideration and
the impugned judgment and order.
7. By the judgment dated 17.11.2017, the
MPSC was directed by MAT as under:
"ii) The respondent authorities are
directed to re-consider the case of the applicant on
the point as to whether the applicant's case can be
considered for relaxation of the norms given under
the Rules of 2014 coupled with directions issued in
the Office memorandum dated 29/12/2005. The
decision on such aspect shall be taken within three
months from the date of this order and shall be
19wp3056.2021.odt
communicated to the applicant in writing. No order
as to costs. "
8. Accordingly, the MPSC gave its
reconsideration to the issue. While giving its
reconsideration, the MPSC took into account not only
the case of the petitioner, but also case of the other
physically challenged candidates and also the Rule 9(ix)
of the Rules of 2014 and paragraph 22 of the
memorandum issued by the Government of India. The
consideration that was given by the MPSC after the case
was remitted back to it was as follows:
"mijksDr vkns'kkUo;s ek- eWVus vk;ksxkP;k
dk;Zfuoekoyhe/khy rjrwnh o dsanz 'kklukP;k dkfeZd o izf'k{k.k
foHkkxkP;k [email protected]@2005 jksthP;k Memorandum e/khy ifj-
22 e/khy rjrwnhP;k vuq"kaxkus vtZnkjkps viaxRo o R;kauh izkIr
dsysys ,dq.k xq.k fopkjkr ?ksmu eqyk[krhe/;s fdeku 41% xq.k izkIr
dj.;kckcr vlysY;k vk;ksxkP;k fu;ekl vtZnkjkP;k ckcrhr f'kfFkyrk
ns.;kckcr vkns'kkP;k fnukadkiklwu 3 efgU;kP;k vkr iqufoZpkj
dj.;kr ;kok rlsp iqufoZpkjkarh ?ks.;kr vkysyk fu.kZ; vtZnkjkl ys[kh
dGfo.;kr ;kok vls vkns'k fnys gksrs- ek- U;k;kf/kdj.kkP;k lnj
vkns'kkP;k vuq"kaxkus vtZnkj Jh- cko.ks ;kaP;kckcr ?ks.;kr vkysY;k
vik=rsP;k fu.kZ;koj iqufoZpkj dj.;kr vkyk- iqufoZpkjkP;k osGh
vk;ksxkP;k dk;kZfu;ekoyhrhy fu;e dz-9(ix) uqlkj T;k mesnokjkauk
eqyk[krhr 41% is{kk deh xq.k izkIr gksrkr v'kk mesnokjkaP;k
f'kQkjlhdfjrk fopkj dj.;kr ;sr ukgh- rlsp lnj fu;ekl
ekxkloxhZ; vFkok fnO;kax mesnokjkaP;k ckcrhr f'kfFkyrk ns.;kph rjrqn
vk;ksxkP;k dk;Zfu;ekoyhe/;s ukgh- rlsp ;kckcr vlsgh ueqn dj.;kr
;srs dh] izLRkqr ifj{kr fnO;kax izoxkZrwu f'kQkjlik= BjysY;k mesnokjkais{kk
,dq.k xq.k tkLr vlysys rFkkfi] eq[yk[krhr 41% is{kk deh xq.k izkIr
>kY;kus f'kQkjlhdfjrk fopkj gksow u 'kdysys vU; fnO;kax mesnokj
ns[khy vkgsr- R;keqGs Jh- cko.ks ;kaP;k ckcrhr eqyk[krhP;k xq.kkae/;s
f'kfFkyrk ns.;kpk fu.kZ; e;kZfnr Lo:ikpk ?ksryk tkow 'kdr ukgh-
R;keqGs vk;ksxkP;k dk;Zfu;ekoyhe/khy rjrwnh o dsanz 'kklukP;k dkfeZd
o izf'k{k.k foHkkxkP;k fn- [email protected]@2005 jksthP;k Memorandum
e/khy ifj- dz- 22 e/khy rjrwnh la;qDrjhR;k fopkjkr ?ksrk Jh-
ckc.ks ;kaP;k izdj.kh O;fDrfof'k"V f'kFkhyrk ns.ks 'kD; ukgh vlk fu.kZ;
l[kksy iqufoZpkjkarh ?ks.;kr vkyk- R;keqGs lnj inkojhy f'kQkjlhdfjrk
R;kaPkk fopkj u dj.;kph vk;ksxkph dk;Zokgh ;ksX; vkgs- rn~uq"kaxkus
vk;ksxkus ek- U;k;k/khdj.kkP;k vkns'kkuqlkj Jh- cko.ks ;kaP;k izdj.kh
l[kksy iqufoZpkjkarh iqohZ ?ks.;kr vkysY;k fu.kZ;ke/;s cny dj.;kph
vko';drk ulY;kps R;kauk [email protected]@2018 jksthP;k i=kUo;s
19wp3056.2021.odt
dGfoys-
ek- eWVP;k vkns'kkP;k vuq"kaxkus vk;ksxkus lnj izdj.kh
dsysyh dk;Zokgh jhrlj o ;ksX; vlwu vk;ksxkus ek- eWVP;k vkns'kkPkk
voeku dsysyk ukgh ;kph uksan ?;koh-**
9. It would be clear from above, the MPSC did
give its consideration after the case was remanded back
to it and applied its mind to the facts of the case in the
light of the Rule 9(ix) of the Rules of 2014 and
paragraph 22 of the memorandum dated 29.12.2005
and came to the conclusion that it was not possible for it
to relax the minimum criteria which it has set for
clearance of the interview stage.
10. Against the decision so given by the MPSC,
the petitioner filed contempt petition before the MAT.
The MAT, however, found no merit in the contempt
petition. The MAT gave its reason in paragraph 9 of its
judgment and order dated 27.04.2020, which is
reproduced as below:
"The legal position is settled that when the discretion
is conferred on any authority that authority has to
take the decision as per the rules and if that discretion
is exercised by the authority as per the rules, then it is
not possible to say that the authority has breached any
substantive rules. While exercising the discretion in
the present matter, the respondent no.1 considered
the Rule 9(ix), similarly Clause-22 of the
memorandum issued by the DOPT was also taken into
account and therefore, it is not possible to say that
deliberately relief is not given to the applicant. On
the contrary, we will say that the direction is
exercised in fair manner by the respondent No.1,
therefore, we are unable to accept that the
respondents have committed contempt. Hence, we do
not see any merit in the contempt petition. The
contempt petition stand dismissed. No order as to
19wp3056.2021.odt
costs."
11. It would be clear from above that the MAT
has rightly found that the MPSC was not in contempt of
its earlier order. Rather the MPSC has exercised its
discretion upon application of mind and in regard to the
guidelines given by the MAT in its earlier judgment and
order. Thus, we find no merit in the petition.
12. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
nd.thawre
