Bombay High Court
Rekha D/O. Wasudevganjre, And Another vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 May, 2024
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:20224-DB
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13078 OF 2023
1. Rekha Wasudev Ganjre,
2. Priya Ravindra Hate. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Home,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Special Director General of Police,
Training and Special Squad,
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai,
Office at Maharashtra State Police,
Head Quarters, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Colaba, Mumbai-400 001.
3. Additional Director General of Police,
Training and Special Force,
State of Maharashtra,
Office at Maharashtra State Police
Head Quarters, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Colaba, Mumbai-400 001.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur City, Nagpur,
Office at Police Bhawan, Civil Lines,
West High Court Road,
Nagpur.
5. The Director,
Mahapariksha,
Maharashtra Information Technology
Corporation Ltd., (Maha. IT) Office at
Dinshaw Wacha Road, Near K.C. College,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 440032. ...Respondents
1 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2024 06:27:09 :::
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13079 OF 2023
1. Amol Dileep Raut,
2. Sujitsing Nihalsing Maher,
3. Soyal Abdul Shaikh,
4. Pradip Narayan Ghune,
5. Yogesh Damu Chandile,
6. Amol Shriram Rore,
7. Vishal Kaduba Sonane,
8. Shivaji Shriram Chim,
9. Satish Popat Jadhav,
10. Vijay Arun Bahir,
11. Kishor Punjaram Autade,
12. Baliram Sudam Gaikwad,
13. Abhimanyu Arjun Sarkale,
14. Atul Pandurang Sarkate,
15. Pradip Darasing Rathod,
16. Tripati Dnyanaba Nagargoje,
17. Kiran Vishwanath Kuklare,
18. Vishal Babasaheb Shinde,
19. Rajendra Ashok Ghodke,
20. Gajanan Kashisram Sabale,
21. Kiran Kachru Jagtap,
22. Sandip Bhagwan Waghmare,
23. Gopinath Panditrao Khude,
24. Devanand Vishvanath Hatagale,
25. Vishnu Shankar Suslade,
26. Vasanta Namdeo Rathod,
27. Priyanka Bhaurao Gawande,
28. Pushpa Ramkaran Yadav ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Additional Director General of
Police (Training & Special Unit),
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
2 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2024 06:27:09 :::
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Buldhana, District Buldhana.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Amravati, District Amravati.
5. The Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur, District Nagpur.
6. The Superintendent of Police,
Wardha, District Wardha.
7. The Superintendent of Police,
Akola, District Akola.
8. The Superintendent of Police,
Nagpur (Rural), District Nagpur. ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Akash Moon for Petitioners in WP/13078/2023.
Mr. P. B. Patil for Petitioners in WP/13079/2023.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. a/w. Mrs. T. N. Bhatia, AGP for
Respondents-State.
__________
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR,
JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.
Date on which the Arguments were Heard : 26th April 2024.
Date on which the Judgment is Pronounced : 3rd May 2024.
JUDGMENT :
- (Per Jitendra Jain, J.)
1. These two Writ Petitions are transferred from Nagpur Bench of
this Court to the Principal Seat since the Principal Seat was seized of
similar matters arising out of the Full Bench decision of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal') dated 17 th March 2023 in Original
3 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
Application No.144 of 2022 (Amit Harishchandra Daphal Vs.
Superintendent of Police & Anr.) with connected matters.
2. We have decided Writ Petition No.7650 of 2023 ( Ashok
Mallinath Halsangi & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) with
connected Writ Petitions today. However, the Counsel for the present
Petitioners contended that the facts of their case are different than the
facts of the other group of Petitioners and therefore they should be
heard separately. It is on this backdrop that we have de-tagged the
present Writ Petitions from the other group and heard them separately.
3. The Petitioners are seeking to challenge the order of the Full
Bench of the Tribunal dated 17th March 2023 with a further prayer that
their appointment should not be cancelled on the basis of the said Full
Bench decision of the Tribunal.
4. For the purpose of the adjudication, we would narrate the facts
of Writ Petition No.13079 of 2023.
Brief Facts:
5. On 30th November 2019, the Respondents published an
advertisement for the post of 'Police Constable Driver'. The Petitioners
applied for the said post by making more than one application in more
than one district. The Petitioners cleared the written examination and
4 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
also cleared the physical test. The Petitioners names were shown in the
merit list and were also given appointment letters. Meanwhile, a
communication dated 29th October 2021 was issued by Respondent No.2
cancelling the appointments of those candidates who were found to
have made more than one application for the same post in more than
one unit. The said communication was challenged by the Petitioners
before the Tribunal at Nagpur by filing Original Application Nos.309 and
325 of 2022. The Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal allowed the Original
Applications filed by the Petitioners on 31 st March 2022 and pursuant
thereto the Petitioners came to be appointed for the post. Meanwhile, a
Full Bench of the Tribunal was constituted at Mumbai to adjudicate the
issue of whether a candidate can make more than one application for
the same post in various units. The Full Bench of the Tribunal after
hearing all the parties came to the conclusion on 17 th March 2023 that a
candidate can make only one application for one post in one unit and if
a candidate makes more than one application, being for different units
then the same would be illegal. It is on this backdrop that the Petitioners
are aggrieved since their appointments have been held to be illegal and
therefore they are before us.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that on a
conjoint reading of clauses 11.10 and 11.17 of the advertisement dated
5 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
30th November 2019, there is no prohibition for a candidate to make
more than one application for the same post in various units. The
Petitioners further submitted that the last sentence in clause 11.10
which prohibits more than one application for the same post in different
units is contrary to the initial part of the said clause and furthermore the
advertisement does not provide for any consequence if the candidate
makes more than one application, being for different units for the same
post. The Petitioners relied upon the definition of a 'police unit' as per
Recruitment Rules of 2019. The Petitioners, in the alternative, submit
that even in such a scenario the candidate should be considered at least
for the first of the applications on a reading of clause 11.17 of the said
advertisement. The Petitioners further submitted that they were not
heard by the Full Bench and therefore the decision rendered by the
Nagpur Bench in their case should not be reversed and that the decision
of the Full Bench cannot be implemented against them. The Petitioners
have also distinguished the decision in the case of K. G. Ashok & Ors. Vs.
Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.1. The Petitioners by referring to
an earlier advertisement dated 3rd September 2019 submitted that the
last sentence of clause 11.10 of the advertisement of 30 th November
2019 was not there in the past. The Petitioners further submitted that
the selected candidates are less meritorious and, therefore, at least for
1 (2001) 5 SCC 419
6 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
the purpose of zone of consideration and keeping in mind that the best
talent has to be selected, their prayers should be considered. The
Petitioners further submitted that in the Recruitment Rules of 2019,
there is no restriction on making more than one application. The
Petitioners have further relied upon communications dated 12 th August
2021 and 27th December 2021. The Petitioners have relied upon various
decisions and prayed that their appointment should be protected and
the decision of the Full Bench should not be made applicable to them.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted
that the Petitioners have been heard and the notice was also given to the
Petitioners and therefore they cannot make a grievance that they have
not been heard. The Respondents further submitted that by pleading
their case on merits, the Petitioners have taken mutually destructive plea
by submitting that on the one hand they have not been heard by the Full
Bench of the Tribunal and on the other hand have canvassed before this
Court their submissions on merits. The Respondents have further
submitted that in any case since they have now been heard fully, the
grievance of them not being heard does not survive. The Respondents
have submitted that on a conjoint reading of clauses 11.10, 11.17, 23
and 24 of the advertisement, a candidate is prohibited from making
more than one application for the same post in more than one unit and
7 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
therefore the Respondents are justified in terminating the employment
of the Petitioners. It is submitted that the Full Bench had rightly decided
the issue referred to it. The Respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal
of the Writ Petitions.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the
Respondents and with their assistance have perused the documents
annexed to the petition and brought to our notice during the course of
hearing.
9. Before we deliberate the issue which is raised for our
consideration, it is important to reproduce the relevant clauses 4, 11.10,
11.17, 14.4, 23 and 24 of the advertisement dated 30 th November 2019
including its English translation:
"४) उममदववरवरचम अरर ऑनलवईन (Online) पधदततनम ससवकवरणयवत यमणवर
असलयवनम अरर करतवरनव शशकसणक पमवणपतम / कवगदपतम, अनय पमवणपतम रजडणम
आवशयक नवहत. तयवममळम ऑनलवईन अरवरचत मवसहतत उममदववरवरनत रवसहरवततमधयम
नममद कम लमलयव सवर अटत, शशकसणक अहरतव व मवगणतनमसवर आरकण, वयजमयवरदव
सशसथलतकरण वगशरमचत पवततव तपवसमनच भरववत. ऑनलवईन अरवरमधयम उममदववरवनम
तयवरचयव पवततमनमसवर कवळरतपमवरक सरपमणर, अचमक व खरत मवसहतत भरणम आवशयक
आहम. ऑनलवईन पधदततनम अरर भरतवरनव कवहत चमकव झवलयवस ककवव तमटत झवलयवस व
भरततचयव कजणतयवहत टपपयववर अरर नवकवरलव गमलयवस तयवचत सवरसवत रबवबदवरत
सरबरधतत उममदववरवचत रवहतल. यवबवबत उममदववरवचत तकवर सवचवरवत घमतलत
रवणवर नवहत. ऑनलवईन अरवरत भरलमलत मवसहतत अरर सवदर कम लयवनरतर बदलतव
यमणवर नवहत.
4) As the applications of the candidates are going to be accepted
through "Online" mode, it is not necessary to enclose educational
certificates / documents, other certificates while submitting the
applications. Therefore, candidates shall fill up the information in
the online form only after checking all the conditions, educational
8 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
qualification, reservation sought, relaxation in age-limit etc.
eligibility mentioned in the advertisement. Candidates are
required to carefully fill up the entire, accurate and true
information in the online application as per their eligibility. If any
mistake or error is occurred while filling up the form through
online mode and if the application is rejected at any stage of the
recruitment, then the candidate concerned shall be solely
responsible for the same. No complaint in this regard by the
candidate shall be entertained. Once the application is submitted,
no information filled in in the online application can be changed.
११.१० उममदवरवस (१) सरलहव पजलतस दलवततल पजलतस आयमक / पजलतस अधतकक
यवरचयव आसथवपनमवरतल पजलतस सशपवई चवलक, (२) लजहमवगर पजलतस दलवततल
पजलतस सशपवई चवलक व (३) रवजय रवखतव पजलतस बलवततल सशस पजलतस
सशपवई पदवसवठत एक अशव एकम ण पदवरसवठत ततन आवमदन अरर सवदर करतव यमततल
[मसहलव उममववरवरनव रवजय रवखतव पजलतस बलवततल सशस पजलतस सशपवई
पदवसवठत आवमदन अरर सवदर करतव यमणवर नवहत.
एकवच पजलतस घटकवततल एकवच पदवसवठत एकवपमकव रवसत अरर सवदर करतव
यमणवर नवहतत, (उदवहरणवथर:- पजलतस आयमक, बबहनममरबई यवरचयव आसथवपनमवरतल
पजलतस सशपवई चवलक पदवसवठत एकवपमकव रवसत अरर भरतव यमणवर नवहतत ककवव
रवजय रवखतव पजलतस बलवततल एकवच गटवत सशस पजलतस सशपवई पदवसवठत
एकवपमकव रवसत अरर भरतव यमणवर नवहतत). रर एकव उममदववरवनम एकवच पजलतस
घटकवततल एकवच पदवसवठत एकवपमकव असधक अरर कम लमलल आहमत . असम आढळम न आलम
तर अशव उममदववरवरचत उममदववरत रद कम लत रवईल.
एकवच पदवसवठत सवसवध पजलतस घटकवरत आवमदन अरर सवदर करतव यमणवर नवहतत.
11.10. The candidate may submit three applications, one each
for all posts viz. 1) Police Constable/Driver on the Establishment of
the Commissioner of Police / Superintendent of Police in District
Police Force, 2) Police Constable / Driver in the Railway Police
Force and 3) Armed Police Constable in State Reserve Police Force.
[The Female candidates cannot submit Applications for the post of
Armed Police Constable in State Reserve Police Force.]
More than one applications cannot be submitted for one and the
same post in one and the same Police Unit. (For example : More
than one applications cannot be submitted for the post of Police
Constable-Driver on the Establishment of the Commissioner of
Police, Greater Mumbai or more than one applications cannot be
submitted for the post of Armed Police Constable in one and the
same Group of the State Reserve Police Force.) If it is found that a
candidate has submitted more than one applications for one and
the same post in one and the same Police Unit, then, the
candidature of the said candidate shall be cancelled.
9 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
Applications for one and the same post cannot be submitted in
various Police Units.
११.१७ रर कजणतयवहत उममदववरवनम एकवपमकव असधक ललसगन आयडतसह ननदणत
कम लत असमल तर उममदववरवरचत पसहलत यशसवत ननदणत फक पमढतल पककयव रसम हलल
सतककट, पररतकमत उपससथतत, गमणवतव यवदत आसण अनय सरबरसधत पककयवरसवठत
सवचवरवत घमणयवत यमईल. कजणतयवहत डम पलतकम ट ननदणतस अवशध ननदणत मवनलम रवईल
आसण कजणतयवहत पकवरचम पशसम परतफम ड कम लम रवणवर नवहतत. उममदववरवदवरम पथम
यशसवत ननदणतमधयम कवहत चमककचत मवसहतत दमणयवत आलत असमल तर कब पयव यव
सवषयवबदलचत यजगय पककयव रवणमन घमणयवसवठत
[email protected] वर सलहव ककवव टजल फक कमवरक
१८००३०००७७६६ वर कलल करव.
11.17 If any candidate has made registration with more than
one Log-In ID, then the first successful registration of the
candidates shall be taken into consideration only for further
process like Hall Ticket, Attendance at the examination, Merit List
and other concerned processes. Any duplicate registration shall be
deemed as illegal registration and no money of whatsoever nature
shall be refunded. If any erroneous information in the first
successful registration has been given by the candidate, then to
know the appropriate process in that regard, kindly write to
"[email protected]" or call on the Toll Free Number
180030007766.
Note: Once the Form is submitted, no permission shall be
granted to make any change in the registration details such as
"USER NAME" E-mail ID, Reservation Category (parallel or
reservation category applicable), 1/2/3 Preference for Examination
Centre, Date of Birth, Photograph and signature of the Candidate,
details of educational qualification etc.
१४.४ सनवडतचयव कजणतयवहत टपपयववर (सनवड पककयव समर झवलयवनरतर ककवव
सनयमककनरतर कजणतयवहत कणत) अररदवर सवसहत अहरतव धवरण न करणवरव
आढळलयवस, ऑनलवईन अरवरत कदलमलत मवसहतत / अगर कवगदपतम खजटत सवदर
कम लयवचम ककवव खरत मवसहतत दडवमन ठम वलयवरचम सनदशरनवस आलयवस शवसनवचत
कदशवभमल कम लयवममळम तयवरचयववर पतयक अपतयक दबवव आणलयवस अथवव
गशरपकवरचव अवलरब कम लयवस तयवस सनवड पककयमतमन वगळणयवत यमईल व सनयमकक
झवलत असलयवस कजणततहत पमवरसमचनव न दमतव तयवचत सनयमकक समवप करणयवत यमवमन
तयवरचयव सवरधद कवयदमशतर कवरववई करणयवत यमईल.
14.4 At any stage of selection (after the selection process is
commenced or at any point of time after the appointment), if it is
found that the candidate is not holding the prescribed qualification,
10 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
has submitted false information in the on-line application / or
documents or has concealed the true information, has brought
direct / indirect pressure for having misleading the Government or
has adopted any improper course, his name shall be removed from
the selection process and if he has been appointed, then his
appointment shall be terminated without giving any prior notice
and legal action shall be initiated against him/her.
२३. सवशमष समचनवन-
२३.१.१ उममदववरवरचयव मवसहततकररतव www.mahapariksha.gov.in यव
सरकमतसथळववर पसतवसवत परतकमचत कवयरपणवलत (Software) कशत हवतवळववत हम
समरणयवकररतव नममनव परतकमचत ललक (link) उपलबध करन दमणयवत यमईल.
२३.१.२ उममदववरवरनव सरवववसवठत (Mock Test) पतडतएफ सवरपवत नममनव
पशपसतकव www.mahapariksha.gov.in यव सरकमतसथळववर उपलबध करन
दमणयवत यमणवर आहम.
२३.२ ऑनलवईन अरवरमधयम भरलमलत मवसहतत आसण कवगदपतम तपवसणतचयव वमळत
सवदर कम लमलत कवगदपतम यवत तफववत आढळलयवस उममदववरवचत सनवड भरतत
पककयमचयव कजणतयवहत टपपयववर रद हजऊ शकम ल अथवव उममदववरवनम मवसगतलमलम
सवमवसरक समवरतर आरकण अथवव वयजमयवरदव सशचतल करणम इतयवदत बदल/
सवलतत नवमररमर करणयवत यमततल.
२३.३ परतकव ककवत परतकव कल दवचयव पररसरवत मजबवईल फजन अथवव इतर
कजणतयवहत पकवरचत इलमकटलसनक सवधनम आणणयवस व ववपरणयवस सक मनवई आहम.
२३.४ पमवणपत पडतवळणतचयव वमळत पमवणपतवरमधयम तमटत अढळलयवस / मवसहतत
खजटत आढळलयवस अथवव एखवदम पमवणपत सवदर न कम लयवस उममदववरवलव
तयवचवमळत पमढतल पककयमसवठत अपवत कम लम रवईल.
२३.५ रवसहरवततततल नममद कम लमलम सवर शवसन सनणरय / असधसमचनव / शवसन
पररपतकम हत महवरवष शवसनवचयव www.maharashtra.gov.in यव वमबसवईटवर
उपलबध आहमत. तसमच महवपरतकव पजटरलचम सरकमतसथळववर ललक करणयवत आलमलम
आहमत.
23. Special Instructions :-
23.1.1 The Link of the Model examination will be made
available on the website viz. www.mahapariksha.gov.in for the
information of the candidates, to understand as to how the
Software of the proposed examination should be handled.
23.1.2 Model question paper in PDF Format will be made
available on the website viz. www.mahapariksha.gov.in for the
candidates for practice (mock Test).
11 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
23.2 If any discrepancy is found in the information filled in in
the on-line application and in the documents submitted at the time
of verification of documents then, the selection of the candidate
may be cancelled at any stage of recruitment process or the
changes/concessions regarding social/parallel reservation or
relaxation in age limit, requested by the Candidate shall be
rejected.
23.3. Bringing and using the Mobile phones or any types of
electronic gadgets in the Examination Hall and within the vicinity
of the Examination Centre are strictly prohibited.
23.4 At the time of verification of the certificates, if any
error / false information is found in the certificates or if any
certificate is not produced, then the Candidate shall be declared
ineligible for further process at that time itself.
23.5 All Government Resolutions / Notifications /
Government Circulars mentioned in the Advertisement are
available on the web-site viz. www.maharashtra.gov.in of the
Government of Maharashtra. Similarly, the same are also linked to
the web-site of "Mahapariksha" Portal.
२४. उममदववरवरनव कवहत अडचण भवसलयवस खवलतल कदलमलयव हमलपलवईनवर वमळमत
सरपकर सवधववव.
अ.क. सरसथव / कवयवरलयवचम नवव दमरधवनत / मजबवईल कमवरक
१. ऑनलवईन आवमदन अरर भरणयवस कवहत अडचण [email protected]
असलयवस/पवमश पतवबवबत सवचवरणव करणयवसवठत .in
महवपरतकव पजटरलशत सरबरधतत सरकमतसथळ व दमरधवनत हमलप लवईन १८००३०००७७६६
कमवरक
२. अपर पजलतस महवसरचवलक, पसशकण व खवस पथकम , ०२२-२२८५५६१४
महवरवष रवजय, ममरबई (कवयवरलयतन वमळमत)
३. अपर पजलतस महवसरचवलक, पसशकण व खवस पथकम , adg.trg.office@mahapolice.
महवरवष रवजय, ममरबई. यवरचम e-mail id:- gov.in
४. पजलतस आयमक, बबहनममरबई कवयवरलय (पजलतस भरतत ०२२-२४१२३१११
कक) दमरधवनत कमवरक
24. If the Candidates face any difficulty then, they may contact
on the below-mentioned Help-lines, within time.
Sr.No. Name of Institution/Office Telephone/Mobile No.
1. In case of any difficulty in submitting [email protected].
application on-line/For making enquiry in
about Admit Card, the Web-site and Helpline : 180030007766
12 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
Telephone number pertaining to the
MahaPariksha Portal.
2. Additional Director General of Police, 022 - 22855614
Training and Special Teams, Maharashtra
State, Mumbai (within Office hours)
3. E-mail id of the Additional Director Adg.trg.office@mahapolice.
General of Police, Training and Special gov.in
Teams, Maharashtra State, Mumbai
4. Office of the Commissioner of Police, 022-24123111
Greater Mumbai (Police Recruitment
Cell) Telephone No.
10. The first issue which requires to be considered is whether the
Petitioners were put to notice of the Full Bench hearing. In this
connection it is relevant to note paragraph 9 of the Full Bench decision
which reads thus:
9. Learned counsel Shri Moon has filed M.A. No.12/2023 in O.A.
No.144/2022. Learned counsel Shri Moon also caused appearance for 4
candidates, who have been benefited because of the order passed by
learned Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.22/2022 with
connected O.As. Said applicants though were initially disqualified on the
ground of filling in multiple applications for one and the same post,
subsequently were considered for their appointment on the strength of
the aforesaid order passed in O.A. No.22/2022 with connected O.As. We
though did not allow Intervention Application bearing M.A. No.12/2023,
we permitted learned counsel Shri. Moon to make the submissions on
behalf of the aforesaid applicants. We had directed the learned C.P.O. to
ensure that the candidates, who got the benefit of the order passed in
Group-I applications and have been accordingly given appointments,
shall be noticed that the matter is now being heard by a Larger Bench.
On 5.1.2023 learned CPO informed that total 125 candidates got the
benefit and all of them are duly noticed. It was the contention of learned
counsel Shri Moon that he has instructions from such 4 candidates to
appear and argue on their behalf. In the circumstances, we permitted
learned counsel Shri Moon to make submissions on behalf of the said
applicants who stand at par with the applicants in Group- I applications.
11. It is also important to note that the Joint Commissioner of
Police has in his affidavit dated 25th August 2023 on behalf of
13 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 stated in paragraph 4 that the Tribunal on 10 th
January 2023 had put up on the notice board, a notice regarding the
hearing of the Full Bench and the issue raised therein. Pursuant to the
Tribunal's direction, notice of the Full Bench hearing was pasted in all
the units and the candidates were also served through their respective
units and training centres. The notice affixed by the Tribunal dated 6 th
January 2023 and the notice pasted by Respondent No.2 in all the units
have been annexed to the said petition.
12. In view of above, we do not accept the contention of the
Petitioners that they were not put to notice about the Full Bench
hearing. The affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 clearly states
that not only was the notice put up on the notice board of the Tribunal
but on the directions of the Tribunal, the notice of the Full Bench
hearing was also pasted on the notice board of all the units and the
candidates were also served through their respective units. Therefore, in
our view the submissions made by the Petitioners on them not being
heard by the Full Bench has to be rejected. In any event, the Petitioners
have made their submissions before this Court on the merits and
therefore the grievance raised would not survive. Even if we propose to
remand the Petitioners to the Tribunal insofar as they are concerned, no
purpose would be served because the decision of Full Bench would still
14 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
be applicable because the Petitioners were not the only parties before
the Tribunal but there were other candidates also. The question referred
has thereafter been decided by the Tribunal.
13. Now we propose to deal with the issue as to whether a
candidate could have made more than one application for the same post
in different units and if such a course of action is adopted by the
Petitioners then whether their appointments are required to be
terminated.
14. The Petitioners in paragraph 4, page 9 of Writ Petition
No.13079 of 2023 have stated and admitted that on a reading of clause
11.10 it shows that making an application for one and the same post in
more than one unit is not permissible. The Petitioners seek to rely upon
clause 11.17 to however contend that only the first successful attempt of
login should be considered if registration is sought through more than
one login ID. In our view, the Petitioners are not justified in making a
submission that there is any ambiguity in various parts of clause 11.10
so as to enable them to make more than one application in different
units for the same post. Clause 11.17 that prescribes the effect of having
registered for more than one login cannot be read in a manner to defeat
what is stated in clause 11.10. Therefore, the contention of the
Petitioners that the advertisement does not prohibit them from making
15 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
more than one application for the same post in different units is to be
rejected.
15. Paragraph 2 of clause 11.10 states negatively that more than
one application cannot be submitted for one and the same post in one
and the same police unit. Third paragraph of the said clause 11.10
again negatively provides expressly that applications for one and the
same post cannot be submitted in various police units. The conjoint
reading of these two sentences in clause 11.10 in very clear term like
Nelson's eye expressly prohibits the candidate from making more than
one application for the same post in more than one police unit.
Therefore, if the contention of the Petitioners wherein they have relied
upon the definition of "police unit" as per Recruitment Rules is to be
accepted, still in the light of the express clause of advertisement, the
candidate cannot make more than one application for the same post in
more than one police unit. On a reading of clause 11.10 of the
advertisement in its entirety, there is not only an express prohibition for
making more than one application for the same post in the same unit
but also there is a prohibition for making an application for the same
post in more than one unit. Therefore, even on pure and plain reading
of clause 11.10, the submission made by the Petitioners is to be rejected.
In our view, there is no ambiguity of clause 11.10 and, therefore, this
16 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
Court in the garb of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of appointing
authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the
conditions of the advertisement contrary of the plain language of the
same. This Court cannot adopt interpretative rewriting of clause 11.10
of the advertisement.
16. However, the Petitioners have contended that on a reading of
clause 11.17 more than one application can be made and it is the first
successfully submitted application which ought to be considered. In our
view, this reading of clause 11.17 by the Petitioners is self-contradictory
to what they have stated in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition which we
have analysed above. Even otherwise, clause 11.17 deals with a
situation where a candidate has created more than one login id. In such
a case, the said clause provides that successful registration of the first
login id would be considered for further process like issuing hall ticket,
attendance, merit list etc. and any duplicate registration shall be deemed
as illegal registration. The said clause only deals with login id and it has
no relation with clause 11.10 so as to construe both these clauses
harmoniously in support of the Petitioners. In our view, clause 11.10
and clause 11.17 operate in two different fields, and therefore, clause
11.17 cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioners. It is also important
to note that clause 11.17 expressly provides that if any erroneous
17 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
information in the first successful registration has been given by the
candidate, then to know the appropriate process in that regard, a
candidate can either call on the Toll Free Number or write a mail to the
email address mentioned therein. The Petitioners have not availed this
remedy if at all there was some confusion in the interpretation of clause
11.17. The object of clause 11.17 is only to ensure that only one login
id is created by one candidate. The object behind the same is to curb
the possibility of creating more than one login id and making multiple
applications. The said objective is in consonance with clause 11.10
which expressly prohibits a candidate from submitting more than one
application for the same post. Therefore, the harmonious construction
of the two clauses is to the extent that a candidate cannot be permitted
to make more than one application for the same post qua each district.
Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners on this count is also required
to be rejected.
17. If the Petitioners had any doubt on the interpretation of clause
11.17, they could have approached the helpline as provided in clause 24
for necessary clarification. It is not the case of the Petitioners that they
had availed the said clarification. Therefore, even on this count the
submission made by the Petitioners cannot be accepted.
18 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
18. It is also important to note that around 1,17,000 candidates
applied for the post out of which 2,897 candidates have made multiple
applications which means 97.5% of the candidates understood correctly
that even on a reading of clause 11.17 and 11.10 that only one
application could be made. If there was an apparent confusion on the
reading of two clauses, then many candidates would have raised the
grievance. The fact that almost 97.5% candidates understood the clause
correctly, it cannot be said that there was any confusion or ambiguity
moreso when the Petitioners themselves have admitted in paragraph 4
of the petition that more than one application could not have been made
under clause 11.10. As opined by us earlier, the ambiguity sought to be
created by the Petitioners by relying upon clause 11.17 is misconceived.
19. It is also important to note clause 4 of the said
advertisement which provides that if any mistake is found in making
online application then the candidature would be rejected at any stage
of the selection process and the candidate will solely be responsible. This
clause also justifies the action of the Respondent-State for disqualifying
the candidates and/or for terminating their employment for such reason,
which has been approved by the Tribunal.
20. The submissions made by the Petitioners by relying upon
advertisements issued for other years are to be rejected. The fact that in
19 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
the advertisement before us there is a specific bar mentioned in the last
sentence of clause 11.10 which expressly in negative terms prohibits
from making more than one application for the same post in various
police units, clearly shows that the appointing authority has prohibited
such a course of action for the purpose of recruitment to be made by the
present advertisement which is posed for our consideration.
21. The Petitioners have relied upon definition of 'police unit'
under clause 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules, 2019, to contend that there
is no prohibition in making more than one application for the same post
in different units. In our view, if this interpretation is to be accepted
then the last sentence of clause 11.10 which prohibits such a course of
action would become redundant. A harmonious reading of the second
and third paragraphs of clause 11.10 would mean that a candidate is
prohibited from making more than one application for the same post in
different units. The Petitioners have also understood the same as evident
from the averment made in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition. Clause 2(g)
of the Recruitment Rules, 2019 defines 'police unit' to mean office of the
Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police and the said
definition begins with "unless the context requires otherwise". The said
definition does not further classify police unit region-wise whereas in
the advertisement dated 30th November 2019, the recruitment is district-
20 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
wise/unit-wise. Therefore, when it comes to reading of clause 11.10 of
the advertisement under consideration, the interpretation which is
required to be given to the phrase 'unit' in clause 11.10 would be qua
the 36 districts specified in the said advertisement. Therefore, the phrase
'unit' has to be read to mean the office of the Commissioner of Police or
Superintendent of Police in each of these 36 districts and if read so then
clause 11.10 in its entirety would mean that a candidate applying in one
district cannot apply for the same post in another district. Therefore, in
our view, the action of the Respondents cannot be faulted.
22. We now propose to deal with the decisions relied upon by the
Petitioners.
23. The first decision relied upon by the Petitioners is the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Neelima Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.2 for the proposition that the overruling of a decision subsequently
in another case would not mean that the other parties in some other
proceedings, which have become final, is binding. In our view, said
decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case since
the Petitioners were put to notice about the issue raised before the Full
Bench with respect to the correctness of the decisions of the Tribunal
which were in favour of the Petitioners. Furthermore, when it comes to
2 (2021) SCC Online SC 610
21 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
mass recruitment from a common advertisement, facts would be
different than when it comes to private litigation between two parties
which gets overruled in some subsequent decisions between parties
subsequently.
24. The second decision relied upon by the Petitioners is the case
of State of U.P. Vs. Shashi Joshi3 for the proposition that if the service is
not effected then same is not binding. We have already observed that the
Petitioners have been put to notice and some of them intervened and
were also heard. Therefore, merely because they were not impleaded,
the Petitioners cannot contend that the decision of the Full Bench is not
binding.
25. The next decision relied upon by the Petitioners is of the
Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaheer Ahamad Vs. State of
Rajasthan4. The said decision has been exhaustively dealt with and
correctly distinguished by the Full Bench in its decision in paras 61 to
63. In the light of the same, the reliance placed on the decision of the
Rajasthan High Court cannot be of any assistance to the Petitioners
before us.
26. The next decision relied upon by the Petitioners is in the case
of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.5 for the proposition
3 (2015) 3 SCC 175
4 2021 SCC Online Raj-4148
5 (2019) 20 SCC 17
22 of 23
Tauseef 36-WP.13078.2023 & WP.13079.2023-J.doc
that in case of ambiguity and if faced between a choice in which only a
few people would be eligible versus a fairly large group, the latter ought
to be adopted to have a diverse pool of applicants to promote merit and
further provide equal opportunity to the masses. We fail to understand
as to how this decision would be applicable to the facts of the present
case moreso when the Petitioners before us are mini-scale compared to
the candidates who have applied for the advertised post and correctly
interpreted clause 11.10, which we have already observed above were
97.5% compared to 2.5% who have made multiple applications. On the
contrary, the observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision
supports the case of the Respondents rather than that of the Petitioners.
27. In view of above, looked at from any angle, the Writ Petitions
are required to be dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of the
disposal of the Writ Petitions, the pending interim application, if any,
does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
28. The operation of the present judgment is stayed for a period of
four weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.]
23 of 23
