Bombay High Court
Shubham Suresh Bhotmange And Ors vs The Secretary, Maharashtra ... on 7 January, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
Digitally
signed by
VINA VINA ARVIND
KHADPE
ARVIND Date:
KHADPE 2023.01.11
15:17:17
+0530
Vina Khadpe
1 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.311 OF 2023
1. Shubham Suresh Bhotmange ... Petitioners
Age.27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. C/o. B-301, Tulsi Plaza Bldg.,
Near Navli Phatak, Lokmanya Nagar,
Palghat (W), Palghar 401404
Plot No.36, Near Giradkar
Polytechnic, Aherrao Layout,
Umred 441203
2 Shubham Mahadevappa Rajmane
Age.27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Shivkrupa Niwas, Parli-Beed Road,
In Front of Market Yard, Sirsala,
Tq. Parli, Dist.Beed - 431128
3 Bhausaheb Megha Jadhav
Age.31 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Rajpimpri Tal. Georai,
Dist. Beed
4 Anil Vishnu Shinde
Age.25 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Wahegaon, Post. Shekta,
Tal.A'bad, Dist. Aurangabad-431007
5 Laxmikant Prakash Nakate
Age.29 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Post Akluj, Tal. Malshiras,
Dist. Solapur - 413101
6 Mandar Pandurang Bharati
Age.31 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Tridal, Nageshwar Society, Parner,
Tal. Parner, Dist. Ahmedngar-414302
7 Suraj Yashwant Patil
Age.27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Ujani(Ma), Tq.Madha,
Dist. Solapur 413210
8 Mayur Suresh Mane
Age.27 years, Off. Student,
Vina Khadpe
2 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
R/at. Gondi, Tal. Karad,
Dist. Satara 415108
9 Sagar Balasaheb Khande
Age.32 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Khande Galli, Deolali Pravara,
Marwadi(N.V.) Rahuri, Ahmednagar,
Maharashtra 413716
10 Jayant Rajubhai Kohale
Age. 26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Ward No.2, Zadshi Seloo,
Wardha, Maharashtra 442104
11 Amol Marotirao Markad
Age.25 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Dhilli, Post Jaipur,
Tq. Dist. Washi 444507
12 Chandrakant Madhav Wath
Age.27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Post Kekatumara, Tal. Washim,
Dist. Washim 444505
13 Shubham Shriram Bholane
Age.25 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli,
Dis. Buldhana, Maharashtra 443201
14 Pankaj Shivaji Jadhav
Age. 29 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Haranbari, Post. Mulher,
Tal. Baglan (Satana), Dist. Nashik 423302
15 Pratik Sunil Bhingardive
Age.28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Plot No.7, Shahumaharaj Hsg. Soc.,
Near Bhingar Tekadi, Bingar 414002
16 Pratik Sanjay Shrikondawar
Age.28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Dhawale Layout Morwa,
Ward No.1, Nagpur Road, Post. Morwa,
Tah. Dist. Chandrapur 442406
17 Akshay Janardhan Murme
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Maroti Nagar, Mayur Park, Plot No.21,
Opp. Saimulvydhan Hospital, Aurangabad
Vina Khadpe
3 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
18 Himanshu Devidas Nagare
Age.26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. S/o. Devidas Nagare, Pipada Galli,
A/p. Rahata, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmedagar,
Maharashtra 423107
19 Omkar Chandrakant Bhegade
Age. 24 years, Occ. Student,
R/at S/o. Chandrakant Bhegade,
Near Gharawadi Railway Station,
279, Shaniwar Peth, Khalwadi, Talegaon,
Tabhade, Pune 410506
20 Manish Vasant Dangat
Age. 25 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. R.C. Marg, Opp. Navjeevan Soc.,
Samrat Ashok Nagar -2, Near Hanuman
Mandir, Chembur, Mumbai 400074
21 Anil Punjaji Kene
Age. 32 year, Occ. Student,
R/at. Mata Mahakali Nagar,
Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana
22 Shrirang Shivaji Gaykar
Age. 33 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Otur, Bogul Hospital,
Patil Ali, Tq. Junnar, Dist. Pune 412409
23 Palash Rajendra Wagh
Age.26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. 20, Balaji Nagar, Deopur,
Dhule 424002
Email: [email protected]
Mob: 7020381538
24 Pravin Tanaji Karande
Age.29 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Jujarpur, Junoni, Tq.Sangola,
Dist. Solapur.
25 Kakarao Yadavrao Kharat
Age. 28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Post Hasanbad, Tq. Bhokardan,
Dist. Jalna
26 Kiran Tukaram Sabne
Age.29 years, Occ. Student,
Vina Khadpe
4 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
R/at. 0256/15, Behind NMMC Hospital,
Bindumadhav Nagar, Digha,
Navi Mumbai 400708
27 Raju Kanhu Wagarhande
Age.28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Kurha, Post. Sukali, Tq. Arni,
Dost. Yavatmal
28 Kedar Uttam Ghagde
Age. 23 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.128, Venkattpura Peth,
Dist. Satara
29 Pankaj Subhashrao Gadekar
Age.29 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Shri Sai Mansi Apartment,
Pimple Gurav, Pune 411061
30 Suraj Shivaji Ugale
Age. 30 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Survey No.7393, Near Kamla
Ayurvedic Hospital, Balika Ashram Road,
Wagh Mala, Nagar, Ahmednagar 414001
31 Chapansing Ganesh Rajpur
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Post Raipur, Tq. Buldhana,
Dist. Buldhana 443001
32 Prashant Narayan Shelke
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Risod Road, Datta Nagar,
Lakhala, Dist. Washim 444505
33 Akshay Sambhaji Naiku
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. 933, Nehri Chowk, Bingar,
Dist. Ahmednagar 414002
34 Sagar Jaywant Pawar
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Near New Deaf-Mute School,
Urulikanchan, Pune 412202
35 Yogesh Netaji Kamble
Age. 25 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Gayranwadi Road, Kanap Mala,
Narwad, Sangli 416409
Vina Khadpe
5 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
Email :[email protected]
Mob:9156421766
36 Amol Ashokrao Jagtap
Age.29 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Talepimpalgaon, Tal. Patodi,
Post. Tambarajuri, Dist. Beed 414204
37 Arvind Subhash Rathod
Age. 26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Post Akoli, Tq. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal
38 Vijay Ganesh More
Age.25 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Panchala, Post. Washim,
Tq.Dist. Washim 444505
39 Sagar Tanaji Tangde
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Hatedi kd, Post. Hatedi Bk,
Tq. Dist. Buldhana.
40 Dharmraj Dashrath Rajebhosale
Age.30 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Post Tanhu, Tq. Indapur, Dist. Pune
41 Kamlesh Manoj Suryavanshi
Age.28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Tulsi Plaza Building, Block No.301/B,
Kacheri Road, Near Navali Phatak,
Palghar West,
At Post Tq. Dist. Palghar 401404
42 Shshank Pandurang Ghare
Age. 29 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Ganga Apartment, A-4,
Kashinath Patil Nagar, Pawar Hospital
Jawal, S. No.20/2, Pune City, Dhanakawadi,
Dist. Pune 411043
43 Komal Dnyandev Pawar
Age. 28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Teacher Colony, Police Station Road,
Mhaswad, Tq. Mann, Dist Satara 415509
44 Smita Vikram Aher
Age. 33 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. 1/1, Sampat Chawl, Laxman Nagar,
Vina Khadpe
6 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060
45 Priti Ashok Mane
Age. 28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Ramnath Dubey Chawl,
Carter Road No.7, Borivali (E), Mumbai
46 Vaibhav Prabhakar Chavan
Age.27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Matoshri Niwas, Geeta Nagar,
Nanded 431605
47 Shubham Vijayran Kapile
Age.26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. At Post Nerpinglai,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati
48 Kiran Kacharu Gholap
Age. 34 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Flat No.9, Swami Samarth Krupa
Soc., Gulmohar Nagar, Nashik-422004
49 Gajanan Vitthalrao Kubde
Age. 28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Falkalas, Tq. Purna,
Dist. Parbhani
50 Amit Bhojram Kuranjekar
Age. 26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.S/o. Bhojram Kuranjekar,
Ward No.1, At Post. Soni,
Tah. Goregaon, Dist. Gondia-441801
51 Atish Subhash Narawade
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Takali (Khatgaon) Tq. Nagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar 414103
52 Sandip Laxman Devre
Age.28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. 102/1st Floor, Paras Apt.,
Pawshe Chowk, Katemanawali Road,
Kolsewadi, Kalyan (E).
53 Nitin Ganeshrao Wadgave
Age. Adult, Occ. Student,
R/at.Narshi Tanda, Po. Narshi,
Tq. Naigaon, Dist.Nanded 431709
Vina Khadpe
7 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
54 Nitish Balashiram Thorat
Age.31 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Sr. No.676, Ganesh Paradise Soc.,
Flat No.16, Near Blue Heavens School,
Bibwewadi, Pune 411037
55 Sandesh Jayawant Chavan
Age. 31 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Post Karawadi, Tq. Karad,
Dist. Satara 415105
56 Chandrashekhar Kumar Raut
Age.27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Raut-Harale Galli, Tung,
Tq. Miraj, Dist.Sangli 416301
57 Pankaj Chintamanrao Jadhav
Age. 26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Pankaj Niwas, Vasmant Road,
Dist. Parbhani 431401
58 Sambhaji Vishnu Shinde
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Bhoom, Tal. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad 413504
59 Vivek Manohar Danshure
Age. 27 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Ambika Apartment 2,
Dhad Road, Buldhana 443001
60 Manohar Mohanbua Bharati
Age.26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Post Rahati(Bk), Dist. Nanded.
61 Pallavi Sureshrao Balpande
Age. 24 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Post Jamthi Ganeshpur,
Ward No.3, Jamathi Ganeshpur,
Dist. Amravati
62 Prashik Vishwanth Arkade
Age. 29 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar,
Highway Road, Near Siddheshwar Talao,
Khopat, Thane 400601
63 Raghvendra Nagnath Salgar
Age.29 years, Occ. Student,
Vina Khadpe
8 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
R/at. Plot No.2/4, Rajiv Nagar,
Akkalkot Road, Near Mahadev Temple,
Dist. Solapur 413006
64 Ratan Tryambakroa Raybole
Age. 28 years, Occ. Student,
R/at.Kelpani Bk, Malkapur Bhil,
Tal.Akot, Post.Popatkhed,
Dist Aloka 444101
65 Vishal Venkatrao Kalyankar
Age.26 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Gogdari, Barul Marg,
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded,
66 Rahul Ramnath Kale
Age.25 years, Occ. Student,
R/at. Bhojewadi, Post Hivara,
Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed 414202
vs.
1 The Secretary
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
5th, 7th and 7th Floor
Cooprej Telephone Exchange Bldg,
Maharshi Karve Marg,
Cooprej, Mumbai 400021.
2 The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
Through Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400032
Mr.Sandeep Dere for the Petitioners.
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Reserved on : 7 JANUARY, 2023
Pronounced on : 10 JANUARY, 2023
JUDGMENT (per Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of
Vina Khadpe
9 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
parties, taken up for fnal hearing.
2. By this petition, petitioners assail the Judgment and
Order dated 5th January, 2023 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application
No.1327 of 2022. By that Judgment, the Tribunal has
proceeded to dismiss Original Application No.1327 of 2022
instituted by the petitioners seeking a direction that
Corrigendum dated 13th December, 2022 is not applicable to
selection process initiated in pursuance of advertisement
No.05/2020 published on 28th February, 2020.
3. The brief facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details,
are that advertisement No.05/2020 came to be published by
the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (Commission)
convening the Maharashtra Sub-Ordinate Services Non-
Gazetted Group B Preliminary Examination, 2020 (selection),
for flling up various posts including the post of Police Sub
Inspector (PSI). As per advertisement, the examination was to
be conducted in four phases consisting of preliminary
examination of 100 marks, main examination of 200 marks,
physical test of 100 marks and interview of 40 marks.
Vina Khadpe
10 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
Paragraph 3.11 of advertisement indicated the possibility of
modifcation in allotment of marks for physical test which was
to be published on website of the Commission.
4. Petitioners applied in pursuance of the selection for the
post of PSI. It is averred that the preliminary examination
could not be conducted due to COVID-19 pandemic. In the
meantime, proclamation dated 25th May, 2021 came to be
issued by the Commission prescribing qualifying criteria of
60% marks for physical test for being eligible to appear for oral
interview. It was further directed that marks obtained in
physical test would not be considered toward the computation
of total marks for preparation of fnal merit list. Proclamation
dated 25th May 2021 was made applicable for examination
conducted from year 2020 onwards.
5. Thereafter, the Commission conducted preliminary
examination on 4th September, 2021, the result whereof was
published on 3rd December, 2021. The petitioners apparently
cleared the preliminary examination. The main examination
was decorated on 10th December, 2021, increasing the total
marks from 200 to 400 and the same was conducted on
Vina Khadpe
11 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
various dates from 22nd January, 2022 to 12 February, 2022.
The result thereof was published on 17 th November, 2022.
Petitioners have apparently cleared the main written
examination as well and were looking forward to appear in the
physical test, under a expectation that they merely have to
secure qualifying marks of 60% therein without any
competitive element. At such a juncture, Corrigendum dated
13th December, 2022 came to be issued by the Commission,
convening a decision not to apply provisions of proclamation
dated 25th May, 2021 to the selection and further directing
that the physical test for the said selection would be conducted
in accordance with criteria applicable at the time of issuance of
advertisement i.e. the one prescribed in February, 2018. By
Corrigendum dated 13th December, 2022, the Commission also
published criteria for holding physical test as per Annexures
'A' and 'B', under which it was directed that minimum
qualifying marks in physical test would be 50%. Thus, two
essential changes were brought about by the Corrigendum
dated 13th December, 2022 qua physical test viz.:
(i) minimum qualifying marks for physical test were
reduced from 60% to 50%.
(ii) the stipulation of not counting the marks obtained in
physical test, as prescribed in proclamation dated 25 th
Vina Khadpe
12 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
May, 2021, came to be deleted.
This meant that in accordance with Corrigendum dated 13 th
December, 2022, the marks obtained by the candidate in
physical test would now be taken into consideration while
computing total marks secured by the candidate for
preparation of fnal merit list.
6. The petitioners got aggrieved by Corrigendum dated 13 th
December, 2022 especially with regards to the provision for
counting the marks of physical test for preparation of fnal
merit list and approached the Tribunal by fling OA No.1327 of
2022 seeking declaration that Corrigendum dated 13th
December,2022 is not applicable to the Selection. The Tribunal
proceeded to reject OA No.1327 of 2022 by its Judgment and
order dated 5th January, 2023, which is subject matter of
challenge before us in the present Petition.
7. Appearing for the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Dere, the
learned counsel would submit that after conducting
preliminary plus main examinations and after declaration of
results thereof, changing the criteria of holding physical test
Vina Khadpe
13 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
would amount to changing the goalposts after the game has
begun. He would contend that in view of various Judgment of
the Apex Court, such a course of action is impermissible in law.
Mr. Dere also places strong reliance on Judgment of Apex
Court in case of K. Manjusree V. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Another 1 in support of his contention. He would further
contend that altering the scheme of the selection process
particularly with reference to physical test would put the
petitioners at a disadvantageous position. He would submit
that even though the earlier scheme of selection contemplated
counting and considering marks obtained in physical test for
preparation of merit list, that scheme was altered by issuance
of notifcation dated 25th May, 2021 (issued prior to conduct of
preliminary and main examinations) and that on the verge of
conduct of physical test, the Commission could not have taken
a volte face and restored the earlier scheme of slecetion. Mr.
Dere would contend that the Tribunal has committed an error
in distinguishing the Judgment of Apex Court in Manjusree
(supra) which is squarely applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Mr. Dere would lastly
contend that the petitioners are denied reasonable time to
1 (2008) 3 scc 512
Vina Khadpe
14 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
prepare themselves for the physical test which is now
competitive in nature envisaging supersession by the
candidates securing more marks in the physical test. He would
therefore pray that atleast conduct of physical test be
postponed so as to give reasonable time to the petitioners to
prepare themselves for the same. Mr Dere also relied upon the
judgment in Mr. Dere places reliance on Judgment of Apex
Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar
and Others 2
8. Per contra, Mr. B. V. Samant, learned AGP appearing for
the Respondent-State, would oppose the Petition and support
the Judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. He would
submit that the Commission has merely restored the earlier
scheme of selection which was applicable as on date to the
issuance of advertisement. He would criticize the selective
approach of the petitioners in not raising any grievance when
the scheme of selection was altered by issuance of
proclamation dated 25th May, 2021. He would submit that
having not raised any demur about proclamation dated 25 th
May, 2021, petitioners are now estopped from raising any
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706
Vina Khadpe
15 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
objection with regard to Corrigendum dated 13th December,
2022. Mr. Samant would further contend that the revised
scheme of selection qua physical test would be uniformly made
applicable to all candidates and would not result in any
discriminatory treatment to any particular candidate or group
of candidates. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the Petition.
9. Rival contentions of parties now fall for our
consideration.
10. The selection process was advertised on 28 th February,
2020. The scheme of selection envisaged the conduct of
preliminary examination of 100 marks, main examination of
200 marks, physical test of 100 marks and oral interview of 40
marks. The preliminary examination was to be conducted only
to limit the size of candidates to appear in the main
examination and marks obtained in the preliminary
examination were to be altogether ignored. Paragraph 3.7 of
the advertisement provided that the candidates clearing the
physical test would be called for oral interview. Advertisement
appears to be silent with regard to manner in which fnal merit
list is to be prepared. However, as observed above,
Vina Khadpe
16 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
advertisement envisaged ignoring of marks secured only in the
preliminary examination. This meant by necessary implication
that the marks obtained in the main examination, physical
test, oral interview would be taken into consideration for
preparation of the fnal merit list. Thus, the advertisement
gave a clear indication to candidates that the marks obtained
in the physical test would also be a relevant factor for
preparation of fnal merit list. Noticing this stipulation, the
petitioners applied in pursuance of the advertisement and
participated in selection process.
11. Before preliminary examination could be conducted,
proclamation dated 25th May, 2021 came to be issued by the
Commission amending the criteria for conducting physical
test. It was directed that the minimum qualifying marks in the
physical test would 60% (60 marks) and that the marks
obtained in physical test would not be taken into consideration
while preparing fnal merit list. Certain other details for
conducting physical test and marks for various sub-categories
of physical test also came to be prescribed, with which we are
not concerned. Suffce it to state that proclamation dated 25 th
May, 2021 introduced twin changes of prescribing 60%
Vina Khadpe
17 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
minimum qualifying marks in the physical test with a further
caveat the marks obtained in the physical test would not be
taken into consideration for preparing fnal merit list. Though
the notifcation was issued on 25th May, 2021, curiously it was
retrospectively made applicable to all advertisements issued in
the year 2020.
12. Preliminary examination was held on 4 th September,
2021, the result thereof published on 3rd December, 2021.
Thereafter, the programme for holding main examination was
published on 10th December, 2021, in which the slight
amendment was made with regard to the total marks for which
the main examination was to be conducted. It was directed
that the main examination would now be conducted for 400
marks. The marks for physical test (100) and for oral
interview (40) remained unaltered. Main written examination
was conducted on various dated between 22 nd January, 2022
to 12 February, 2022 for 400 marks. The result for written
examination was declared on 17th November, 2022.
13. After declaration of result of main examination,
Corrigendum dated 13th December, 2022 came to be issued
Vina Khadpe
18 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
directing that the previous proclamation dated 25th May, 2021
would not be made applicable to the concerned selection and
that the marking criteria to physical test as stipulated on date
of issuance of advertisement would be made applicable. Thus,
the original scheme of considering the marks secured in
physical test for preparation of fnal merit list was restored by
bringing down qualifying marks for physical test from 60
to 50.
14. Petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the direction to
consider the marks obtained in the physical test for
preparation of fnal merit list. The direction is sought to be
interpreted to mean as if the same amounts to changing the
goalposts after game has begun. We are unable to agree. What
is essentially done by the Commission is mere restoration of
marking system for the physical test as was applicable at the
time of issuance of advertisement. The physical test is yet to be
conducted. Before conduct of physical test, the Commission has
clarifed that the amendment sought to be introduced by
proclamation dated 25th May, 2021 would not retrospectively
apply to 2020-selection. Such action in our view, would not
amount to changing the goalposts after the beginning of the
Vina Khadpe
19 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
game. In fact proclamation dated 25th May, 2021 could well be
construed as changing the goalposts as the same effected the
change in marking system for physical test after issuance of
advertisement and during the currency of selection process.
The petitioners did not question proclamation dated 25 th May,
2021, as the same possibly suited them. Merely because
restoration of original marking system for physical test is
unsuitable to Petitioners, they cannot selectively seek to
challenge the same. There is one more change brought about
by the Commission, which is not challenged by Petitioner, again
because it suits their interest. The action of Commission in
increasing the marks allocated for main written test from 200
to 400 is again selectively not questioned by Petitioners. Such
selective approach adopted by Petitioners required to be
deprecated.
15. Heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioners on
Judgment in the case of Manjusree (supra), however, the facts
in Manjusree are entirely distinguishable. In that case, it was
resolved to conduct written examination of 100 marks and oral
examination of 25 marks. After the examinations were
conducted, results thereof published and selected list was
Vina Khadpe
20 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
prepared, the full Court of the High Court declined to accept
the select list recommended by the Committee and formed a
sub-Committee of Judges to prepare fresh list. The said sub-
Committee opined that the candidates should have been
evaluated with reference to written examination of 75 marks
and interview of 25 marks. This is how the marks obtained in
the written examination was sought to be scaled down from
100 to 75 and after declaration of results and perpetration of
select list. Another change adopted was to prescribe minimum
qualifying marks for interview, which was initially absent.
While Apex Court approved the former change, the later
change of introducing criteria of minimum marks for interview
was held to be impermissible. Thus, the facts in the case of
Manjusree are clearly distinguishable. The Tribunal has rightly
distinguished the Judgment.
16. The reliance of Mr. Dere on the Judgment of this Court in
the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar (supra),
far from assisting his case, actually militates against him. In
that case, the Apex Court has held in paragraph 32 as under;
32. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra). However, in our
considered view, the facts of the aforesaid decision are quite
different from the present case. A change was introduced for the
Vina Khadpe
21 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
frst time after the entire process was over, based on the decision
made by the Full Court qua the cut off. Secondly, it is not as if the
private respondents were nonsuited from participating in the
recruitment process. The principle governing changing the rules of
game would not have any application when the change is with
respect to selection process but not the qualifcation or eligibility.
In other words, after the advertisement is made followed by an
application by a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be
brought in, disqualifying him to participate in the selection process.
It is only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an
application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to
recruit a person suitable for a job.
(emphasis supplied)
Admittedly in the present case, the eligibility criteria has nit
been changed in nay manner and therefore following the
decision in Karunesh Kumar (supra), the argument of
changing the rules of game would not be available for the
Petitioners.
17. As observed above, the marking criteria for written test
and physical test have altered from time to time by the
Commission. Initially, the written test was to be conducted for
200 marks whereas the same is actually conducted for 400
marks. The petitioners are not aggrieved by this decision,
possibly because they have secured higher marks in written
examination. Now they fear that the candidates who are likely
to secure more marks in physical test (who have secured
lesser marks in written test) might supersede them. Apart
Vina Khadpe
22 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
from the fact that the said apprehension is speculative in
nature, petitioners have clearly secured advantage on account
of increase in marks allocated for written test from 200 to 400.
In this context, we put across to Mr. Dere a hypothetical
illustration of comparative position of candidate scoring more
marks in written test and his counterpart capable of securing
more marks in physical test as under:
Earlier marking system Revised marking system
Written Physical Total Witten Physical Total
Test test (100) (300) test test (500)
(200) (400) (100)
Candidate 150 60 210 300 60 360
A
Above illustration would indicate as to how increase in
allocation of marks in main written test puts a candidate
scoring more marks in written test at an advantageous
position over his counterpart capable of securing more marks
in physical test. Mr. Dere fairly accepts the above position, but
submits that there is no increase in the syllabi for written test.
This in our view, would not take away the advantage which
candidates may gain on account of increase in allocation of
marks in written test. Our fndings in this regard are recorded
only to deal with selective approach of Petitioners in not
Vina Khadpe
23 / 23
(9) wp 311.2023 (final).doc
questioning increase in allocation of marks in written test and
shall not be construed to mean as if we have held such increase
in allocation to be illegal.
18. Merely because the original scheme of consideration of
marks obtained in physical test is restored, there is no reason
for the petitioners to feel aggrieved. The revised marking
pattern for physical test would be uniformly made applicable to
all candidates participating in the selection process. It cannot
be said that the decision of the Commission is arbitrary. In our
view, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in
dismissing the Original Application of Petitioners.
19. Petition fled by the petitioners is thus devoid of merits,
the same dismissed without any order as to costs. Rule stand
discharged.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
