Vithal Bhikaji Chavan vs The Maharashtra Public Service ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9400 Bom

                                            1                   wp9437.22 Judgment.docx



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO.9437 OF 2022


         Vitthal Bhikaji Chavan,
         Age; 33 years, Occ; Student,
         R/o; At Patoda, Post; Hatta
         Tq. Sengaon, District; Hingoli.                            ...PETITIONER


                     VERSUS

         The Maharashtra Public Service
         Commission,
         Head Office, 5, 7 and 8th Floor,
         Kuprej Telephone Nigam Building,
         Maharshi Karve Road, Kuprej,
         Mumbai 400021.                                            ...RESPONDENT



                             ....................................
                 Shri Amol B. chalak, Advocate for the Petitioner
               Shri K.N Lokhande, learned AGP for respondent-State
                             ....................................


                                     CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                             SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

                                     DATE       : 19.09.2022


JUDGMENT : [PER : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]


1.                Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at the stage

of admission.

2 wp9437.22 Judgment.docx

3. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order

dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,

Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 695 of 2022. Before

the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 25.03.2022

passed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commissioner (for short

'MPSC'), by which, he has been permanently debarred from appearing

for examination or recruitment process to be conducted by the MPSC.

4. The petitioner had participated in selection convened by

the MPSC vide the advertisement No.106 of 2021 for the appointment

on various posts such as the Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent

of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax etc. On account of the

date of conducting the preliminary examination being postponed, the

petitioner had vented out his frustration on the social network platform

"Twiter" by using obscene and unparliamentary language. After

issuance of show cause notice, the MPSC proceeded to cancel his

candidature by order dated 25.03.2022. That order was the subject

matter of challenge before the Tribunal in the Original Application No.

337 of 2022, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by directing the

MPSC to re-consider its decision by granting an opportunity to the

petitioner to make a request to that effect.

5. The MPSC proceeded to pass order dated 25.03.2022

retaining its earlier decision of cancellation of candidature of the

petitioner and debarring him permanently for all examination and

selections. The decision dated 21.06.2022 was the subject matter of

3 wp9437.22 Judgment.docx

challenge before the Tribunal in Original Application No. 695 of 2022.

The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the same by order dated

01.08.2022.

6. We have heard Mr. Chalak, the learned Advocate appearing

for the petitioner and have perused the records of the case. Use of

vulgar and unparliamentary language by the Petitioner in his tweet is

admitted. After his candidature was cancelled, he attempted to show

repentance for his conduct. Petitioner was aware that the concerned

social media platform was being used by MPSC for giving wide publicity

to the candidates about its decisions and that his tweet was bound to

be read by all candidates, in addition to the other members of the

public. Petitioner was vying to enter government service on a

substantially high level post. In such situation, it was expected of him

to observe discipline of not protesting about the decision of MPSC on a

social media platform. However he not only proceeded to raise his

objection about MPSC's decision on such a platform but used vulgar

and unparliamentary language. We find that the conduct of the

petitioner was such that the decision of MPSC of cancellation of his

candidature and debarring him from further selection deserved no

interference at the hands of the Tribunal. The decision was taken after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Only relevant

material is considered and irrelevant considerations are eschewed

while arriving at the decision. In such circumstances, the Tribunal, in

exercise of power of judicial review, was not expected to substitute its

4 wp9437.22 Judgment.docx

own opinion in place of the one recorded by MPSC.

7. In fact, the Tribunal did not want to entertain the earlier

Original Application filed by the petitioner. However purely by way of

indulgence, it granted an opportunity to him to approach the MPSC for

re-consideration of its decision. The MPSC has accordingly given fresh

look to the matter and has taken note of the fact that the language

used by the petitioner while expressing his protests on Twiter was

obscene, outrages, unparliamentary. The MPSC has also taken into

consideration the fact that the petitioner was seeking appointment in

Government service and the conduct displaced by him was not

something that was expected of a person aspiring to become a

Government official. Considering the fresh decision taken by the MPSC,

the Tribunal has refused to enter into the matter. It cannot be said that

the decision of MPSC is such that no person of ordinary prudence would

have taken such a decision. We find that the conclusion arrived at by

the Tribunal is plausible. No jurisdictional error is committed by the

Tribunal in arriving at said conclusion.

8. The reliance placed by Mr. Chalak on various judgments is

completely misplaced. In Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs.

Sandeep Kumar 2011 (4) SCC 644, the issue was about the giving

wrong declaration about the pendency of the criminal case and

therefore, the decision has no application to the present case. The

judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Balu

s/o Gahininath Bahirwal in Writ Petition No. 1994 of 2002 decided on

5 wp9437.22 Judgment.docx

29.10.2014 merely follows the decision in Sandeep Kumar (supra)

and therefore, the same also does not have any application to the facts

of the present case. Mr. Chalak has also relied upon the order passed

by the Central Administration Tribunal in Ashwani Kumar Vs.

Union of India and Anr. O.A. No. 3991 of 2013 decided on

26.07.2017. Firstly, the said decision would not bind us. Even

otherwise, the said order has no application to the present case. The

Applicant in that case had indulged in malpractice of copying and on

that allegation, ban of 10 years imposed on him, which was reduced to

3 years by the Tribunal. The facts of the case thus completely

distinguishable. Mr. Chalak, also relied on the Kulja Industries

Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others (2014) 14 SCC 731,

which is on the point of blacklisting of a contractor in tender process.

We failed to comprehend as to how the said judgment would have any

remote application to the present case.

9. Consequently, we find that the petition is devoid of any

merits, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.

10. Rule is discharged.

     ( SANDEEP V. MARNE )                   ( MANGESH S. PATIL )
          JUDGE                                  JUDGE

mahajansb/