Vaibhav Ashok Dhere And Anr vs Maharashtra Public Service ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7641 Bom

                                                                13WP163-21.docx

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 465 OF 2021

 Maharashtra Public Service Commission ...Petitioner

         Versus

 Sandip Kakasaheb Bhitade and Ors.            ...Respondents

                                      WITH

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2021
                                    WITH
                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1245 OF 2021

 Maharashtra Public Service Commission          ...Petitioner

 Versus

 Ganesh Ananda Kiture and Ors.                  ...Respondents

 And

 Vaibhav Ashok Dhere and Anr.                   ...Applicant

                                       ----

 Mr.Ashutosh M. Kulkarni with Mr.Gaurav Sharma, for the petitioner in
 Writ Petition no.173/21 and Writ Petition (st) No.465.

 Ms.Madhavi Ayyappan i/b. Talekar and Associates for the respondent
 No.1 in WP(St) No.465/2021.

 Mr.Atul Damle, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Chetan Nagare, for the
 respondent nos.5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 in WP/163/2021.

 Ms.R.A.Salunkhe-AGP for State in Writ Petition (St) no.465/21.

 Mr.B.V.Samant, AGP for State in Writ Petition no.163 of 2021.


                                                                                   1/6



::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2021 21:54:03 :::
                                                                         13WP163-21.docx

 Mr.Vivek Deshmukh, Deputy Secretary present.

 Mr.Sagar Bhangade, Law Officer present.

 Mr.Devendra Tawde, Under Secretary present.

                                          ----
                                   CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                              G. S. KULKARNI, J.

                                   DATE :-     JUNE 10, 2021.

 P.C.:

 1.               This         is a batch of petitions filed by the petitioner-

Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short 'the MPSC') assailing

common judgment and order dated December 10, 2020, passed by the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal'), thereby

allowing the original applications filed by the private

respondents/candidates.

2. In the proceedings before the tribunal, a controversy had

arisen qua a selection process undertaken by the MPSC on a requisition

of the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra namely the

Director General of Police, to fill up 750 posts of Police Sub-Inspector,

for which an advertisement dated December 7, 2016 was issued. The

respondents had participated in the selection process as undertaken by

the MPSC. The procedure culminated in the MPSC notifying a final

select list of candidates to be recommended, alongwith a wait list. Such

13WP163-21.docx

list was published by the MPSC on June 20, 2018. It is not in dispute

that the names of the respondents appeared in the waiting list.

3. The waiting list was to subsist and remain in operation for

a period of one year from the date of declaration of the result or till the

declaration of the result of the subsequent recruitment process for the

same post whichever was earlier, as per Rule 10(8) of the Maharashtra

Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (Amendment) 2016.

Applying the said rule, the wait list was to lapse on September 19, 2018

on completion of one year also considering that the next examination

(2017 examination), to fill up the vacant posts 'Police Sub-Inspector'

was held in March 8, 2019.

4. It had so transpired that out of 750 recommended

candidates, 57 recommended candidates did not join. Hence, the Home

Department/ Director General of Police, made a demand for

recommendation of 57 candidates from the wait list by addressing

letters dated January 4, 2019 and January 16, 2019 to the MPSC. MPSC

however did not act upon these letters to forward such names. Being

aggrieved by such non-recommendation, the private

respondents/candidates approached the tribunal by filing the original

applications in question.

13WP163-21.docx

5. The tribunal allowed such original applications of the

private respondents/candidates, interalia observing that the select list

was valid and subsisting on the date a requisition was made by the

Home Department, so as to cast an obligation on the MPSC to forward

the names of candidates in relation to the 57 vacancies which remained

unfilled, on account of non joining of the selected candidates. The

tribunal has held that it was not proper for the MPSC to not forward the

names of the private respondents/candidates, whose names appeared in

the wait list. The tribunal accordingly allowed the application by the

passing the following directions:-

"32. Thus in view of above, we allow the Original Applications with following directions:-

(a) We direct the M.P.S.C. to prepare the revised wait/ reserved list of the candidates of 2016 PSI examination and consider the names of the applicants in the wait list by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court on the point of reservation within three weeks i.e. on or before 5 th January,2021.

(b) The M.P.S.C. is hereby directed to recommend the names of the applicants from the revised wait list, if they are eligible and prepare the list within 10 days thereafter i.e. till 16 th January,2021.

(c) We are not inclined to give time further as already the issue remained unsolved for a long time of 3 years.

(d) No order as to costs."

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties for quite

some time. In assailing the tribunal's order, the principal question as

13WP163-21.docx

posed by Mr.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the MPSC is to the effect as

to whether, any sanctity could be attributed to the select list in view of

the observations as made by the Division Bench of this Court in its order

passed on Writ Petition No.92 of 2019 (MPSC Vs. Rohini Subhash

Sonwalkar). Mr.Kulkarni however would fairly concede that by the said

order of the Division Bench the select list in no manner was set aside

and that the observations as made by the Division Bench were required

to be read in the context of the case of the respondent therein namely

Ms.Rohini Subhash Sonwalkar who was claiming benefit of a horizontal

reservation.

7. The hearing of these petitions had spilled over to the

afternoon session, when on the backdrop of the earlier deliberation,

Mr.Kulkarni has taken instructions from Mr.Vivek Deshmukh, Deputy

Secretary, Mr.Sagar Bhangade, Law Officer and Mr.Devendra Tawde,

Under Secretary, who are present in the Court, to make a statement that

the MPSC having considered its position, would comply with the

directions of the tribunal as contained in the impugned order. We accept

this statement of Mr.Kulkarni. In view of such statement of Mr.Kulkarni,

these petitions would not warrant any further adjudication.

13WP163-21.docx

8. We however, clarify that in the event there are any issues in

regard to any further vacancy arising under the selection in question, it

will be open to the State Government as also the MPSC to take

appropriate decision on such issues in accordance with law. We also

clarify that if there are any pending proceedings before the tribunal,

arising under the selection process in question, such proceedings be

decided by the tribunal on merits of each of such individual cases.

9. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

10. As petitions are disposed of, pending Interim Application

no.1245 of 2021 in Writ Petition no.163 of 2021 does not survive. It is

accordingly disposed of.

         (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)                 (CHIEF JUSTICE)