Bombay High Court
Sandip Dilip Shinde And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:20225-DB
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7650 OF 2023
1. Ashok Mallinath Halsangi,
2. Satyawan Bhairavnath Godase, ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Collector Compound, Siddheshwar Peth,
Solapur, Maharashtra - 413 001.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 039.
4. Anil Bhaskar Pakhare,
5. Dhanaji Bhagwan Vagare,
6. Ehatesham Abdulgafar Shaikh,
7. Arun Ulhas Godse,
8. Kiran Krushna Raut, ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5299 OF 2023
Amit Harishchandra Daphal ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
1 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
2. The Superintendent of Police
Raigad Alibag,
Having Office at Tilak Road,
Alibag, Dist. Raigad.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 039. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5300 OF 2023
Nitin Pandurang Shejwal ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Thane
Near Kalwa Bridge, Thane - 400 601
Dist. Raigad.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 039.
4. Vaibhav Laxman Ghumare,
5. Nitin Ashok Nangare,
6. Samadhan Jotiram Jadhav,
7. Atish Patil,
8. Ajit Balram Bhoir ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5301 OF 2023
2 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
1. Omkar Kalyan Shinde,
2. Arjun Haribhau Ghodake,
3. Pankaj Ashok More,
4. Vinayak Sidram Bhosale,
5. Mahesh Popat Deore,
6. Ketan Vishwanath Jadhav,
7. Kiran Tukaram Bhamare,
8. Uddhav Vachishi Raut,
9. Ashok Ramesh Sant ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Raigad Alibag,
Having office at Tilak Road,
Alibag, Dist. Raigad.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 039.
4. Ganesh Pawar,
5. Somnath Appa Gawali,
6. Ramdas Shravan Padle, ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7524 OF 2023
1. Sandip Dilip Shinde,
2. Amol Vithal Khandekar ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Thane Police Commissioner,
Having its address at Near Kalwa
Bridge, Thane - 400 601.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 039.
4. Vaibhav Laxman Ghumare,
5. Nitin Ashok Nangare,
6. Samadhan Jotiram Jadhav,
7. Atish Patil,
8. Ajit Balram Bhoir,
9. Anil Bhaskar Pakhare,
10. Ram Popat Rawalu,
11. Sagar Vitthal Londe,
12. Dhanji Bhagwan Vagare,
13. Ehatesham Abdulgafar Shaikh,
14. Anant Ashroba Jogdand,
15. Arun Ulhas Godse,
16. Kiran Krushnat Raut ..Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6500 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7524 OF 2023
Ehtesham Abdulgafar Shaikh & Anr. ..Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:-
1. Sandip Dilip Shinde
2. Amol Vithal Khandekar ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
4 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Thane Police Commissioner,
Having its address at Near Kalwa
Bridge, Thane - 400 601.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400039.
4. Vaibhav Laxman Ghumare,
5. Nitin Ashok Nangare,
6. Samadhan Jotiram Jadhav,
7. Atish Patil,
8. Ajit Balram Bhoir,
9. Anil Bhaskar Pakhare,
10. Ram Popat Rawalu,
11. Sagar Vitthal Londe,
12. Dhanji Bhagwan Vagare,
13. Ehatesham Abdulgafar Shaikh,
14. Anant Ashroba Jogdand,
15. Arun Ulhas Godse,
16. Kiran Krushnat Raut ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7525 OF 2023
Shubham Janardhan Sawant ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai
Through its Police Commissioner,
Near Crawford Market,
Mumbai - 400 001.
5 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 039.
4. Anil Bhaskar Pakhare,
5. Ram Popat Rawalu,
6. Sagar Vitthal Londe
7. Dhanji Bhagwan Vagare,
8. Ehatesham Abdulgafar Shaikh,
9. Anant Ashroba Jogdand,
10. Arun Ulhas Godse,
11. Kiran Krushnat Raut ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6088 OF 2023
Pankaj Lahu Phanse ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Near Kalwa Bridge, Kharkar Alley, Thane
West, Thane, Maharashtra - 400 601.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 039.
4. Vaibhav Laxman Ghumare,
5. Nitin Ashok Nangare,
6. Samadhan Jotiram Jadhav,
7. Atish Patil ..Respondents
6 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6089 OF 2023
1. Shubham Ashok Salunke,
2. Aanand Sanjay Kolekar,
3. Ramesh Kondimba Kakade,
4. Ramesh Jalinder Lavte,
5. Sagar Sanjay Patil,
6. Vitthalsingh Jaysingh Rajput,
7. Yaseen Shaiklal Shaikh ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
204, National Highway, Sangli - Miraj Rd,
Sarawati Nagar, Vishrambag, Sangli,
Maharashtra - 416 416.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400039. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6090 OF 2023
1. Shahrukh Shabir Mulla,
2. Rahul Chhagan Waghmode,
3. Satish Atmaram Kapare,
4. Nikhil Hari Kale,
5. Rameshwar Dnyanoba Chate ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
7 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Collector Compound, Siddheshwar Peth,
Solapur, Maharashtra - 413 001
Having Office at Tilak Road,
Alibag, Dist. Raigad.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
(Training and Special Unit), (M.S.), Mumbai
Having office in the office of the Director
General and Inspector General of Police,
(M.S.), Mumbai, Old Council Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 039.
4. Ganesh Pawar,
5. Somnath Appa Gawali,
6. Ramdas Shravan Padle ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13094 OF 2023
1. Vijay s/o Bhaurao Khande,
2. Yogesh s/o Vijay Patil,
3. Raju s/o Vinod Fulkar,
4. Sunil s/o Bhanudas Rajemod,
5. Mahendra s/o Bhausaheb Motkar,
6. Anil s/o Chandrabhan Madane ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Addl. Chief Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director General of Police,
M.S., Maharashtra State Police HQ,
Old Council Hall, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Marg, Mumbai - 01.
3. The Addl. Director General of Police
Training and Special Units, M.S.,
Maharashtra State Police HQ,
Old Council Hall, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Marg, Mumbai - 01.
8 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Aurangabad City,
Mill Corner, Aurangabad.
5. The Superintendent of Police,
Beed, Near Civil Hospital,
Barshi Road, Beed.
6. Vijay Rajendra Sarole,
7. Sumit Kisan Rathod,
8. Shrikrushna Niranjan Damre,
9. Shankar s/o Balasaheb Survase,
10. Sham s/o Laxman Takale,
11. Vaibhav Laxman Ghumare,
12. Nitin Ashok Nangare,
13. Samadhan Jyotiram Jadhav,
14. Atish Patil,
15. Ajit Balram Bhoir,
16. Ganesh Pawar,
17. Somnath Appa Gawali,
18. Ramdas Shravan Padle,
19. Mahadeo Dnyandev Patil,
20. Vijay Ashok Bhowad,
21. Anil Bhaskar Pakhare,
22. Ram Popat Rawalu,
23. Sagar Vitthal Londhe,
24. Dhanaji Bhagwan Vagare,
25. Ehatesham Abdulgafar Sheikh,
26. Anant Ashroba Jogdand,
27. Arun Ulhas Godse,
28. Kiran Krushnat Raut ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13107 OF 2023
1. Umesh s/o Madhukar Deshmukh,
2. Sagar s/o Babanrao Karhale,
3. Akshay s/o Balu Dhanwate,
4. Ankush s/o Uttam Nikam ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Madam Cama Road,
9 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
Hutatma Rajguru Square, Nariman Point
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Director General of Police,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
Old Council Hall, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Marg, Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
Training and Special Squad, Maharashtra
State, Old Council Hall, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Marg, Mumbai - 400 001.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Aurangabad City,
Mill Corner, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Sandeep Dere a/w Ms. Arati Patil Dere & Ms. Sonali Pawar for the
Petitioners in WP Nos.5299/23, 5300/23, 5301/23, 7650/23, 6088/23,
6089/23 and 6090/23.
Ms. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate i/by. Mr. Kartikeya Bahadhur, Mr.
Sangram Chinnappa & Mr. Kaustubh Gidh for the Petitioner in
WP/7524/23 & WP/7525/23.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. GP a/w Ms. T. N. Bhatia, AGP for the
Respondent-State in all writ petitions.
Mr. Dinesh B. Khaire a/w Ms. Purva Pradhan for Respondent Nos.4 to 16
in WP/7524/23 and for Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 in WP/7525/23.
Mr. S. B. Talekar a/w. Mr. Madhavi Ayyappan, Mr. Shubham Gurav i/by.
Talekar & Associates for Respondent No.6 in WP/7650/23, for
Respondent Nos.11 & 13 in WP/7524/2023 & Respondent Nos.6 & 8 in
WP/7525/2023.
Mr. Pranav Avhad a/w Ms. Darshna Naval and Mr. Yashasvi Pandey for
Respondent Nos.4 to 7 in WP/5300/23, WP/5301/23, WP/6088/2023 &
WP/6090/2023.
Mr. Abhijeet Desai a/w. Mr. Karan Gajara, Ms. Sanchita Sontakke, Mr.
Vijay Singh, Ms. Daksha Punghera & Mr. Digvijay Kachare for
Respondent No.8 in WP/7650/2023.
Mr. S. S. Thombare a/w Ms. Sakshi Thombare (through VC) for the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13107 of 2023.
10 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
__________
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Date on which the Arguments were concluded : 12th APRIL 2024.
Date on which the Judgment is pronounced : 3rd MAY 2024.
Judgment :- (Per Jitendra Jain, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. These group of Writ Petitions have been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17 th March
2023 of the Full Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai
(for short 'Tribunal') in various Original Applications (OA) filed. Since
all these Writ Petitions raises a common issue for consideration of this
Court, same are disposed of by a common judgment.
Brief facts leading to present adjudication of the issue which arises for our
consideration are as under :-
3. On 30th November 2019, the Respondent-State issued a
advertisement for the recruitment of three posts (i) District Police
Constable Driver, (ii) Railway Police Constable Driver and (iii) SRPF
Armed Police Constable. However, the dispute which is the subject
matter of the present petition pertains only for the post of District Police
Constable Driver.
11 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
4. Pursuant to the above advertisement, around 1,17,000
applications were received for the post of Police Constable Drivers. Out
of 1,17,000 applications, it was noticed by the Respondent-State that
around 2897 candidates have filled in more than one application for the
said post. The Respondent-State disqualified/terminated these
candidates on the ground that the advertisement specifically provided
that one candidate cannot make more than one application for the same
post in various districts. These 2897 candidates made multiple
applications for the said one post in different districts with different
mobile numbers, email ids and in some of the cases different aadhaar
card numbers. Some of the candidates did not even furnish their
aadhaar card numbers. Some of these candidates also made minor
changes to the spelling of their parent's name etc. in different
applications. It is on this backdrop that we are called upon to adjudicate
the correctness of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the
Tribunal, wherein the Full Bench has come to a conclusion that on a
reading of clause 11.10 of the advertisement, these candidates were
rightly disqualified.
5. Before the Tribunal various issues were raised by the
candidates which are reproduced in paragraph 24 of the impugned
order, which reads thus:-
12 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
"24. After having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing
for the applicants in Group-I, as well as, Group-II applications, the
learned Chief Presenting Officer appearing for the State Authorities and
the learned counsel Shri Moon and after having perused the documents
filed on record, broadly the following issues arise for our determination :-
(a) Restriction imposed vide clause 11.10 in the advertisement
dated 30.11.2019, thereby prohibiting the candidates from making
application for one and the same post in more than one Unit,
whether can be held violative of the fundamental rights granted
under Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution ?
(b) Challenge to the recruitment process and more particularly to
clause 11.10 in the advertisement dated 30.11.2019 by the
applicants in Group-I applications after having themselves taken
part in it, whether maintainable?
(c) whether Group-I applications suffer from vice of non-joinder of
necessary parties ?
(d) whether show-cause notices issued to the applicants in Group-II
applications are sustainable ?
(e) what order ?"
However, before this Court the only issue pressed for our
consideration is the interpretation of clause 11.10 of the advertisement.
5. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Full Bench of the
Tribunal has not considered clause 11.17 of the advertisement which
provides that if two email ids are furnished then the one which is
registered first will be considered for all the purposes of the recruitment
process and the other email ids will be ignored to contend that more
than one application is permissible. The Petitioners further contended
that clause 11.10 does not prohibit a candidate to apply for the same
post in different districts since the recruitment is qua each district. The
Petitioners submit that on a harmonious reading of clause 11.10 read
13 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
with 11.17, the restriction is that a candidate for the same district
cannot apply for the same post more than once. The Petitioners,
therefore, submitted that since they have applied for the said post by
making more than one application for different districts, Respondent-
State is not justified in disqualifying/terminating them.
6. Per contra, the Respondent through State and other successful
candidates have contended that by the modus operandi adopted by the
Petitioners, they have violated the condition specified in clause 11.10 by
making multiple applications for the same post in different districts. The
Respondent-State submitted that clauses 11.10 and 11.17 operate in
different fields and same cannot be construed harmoniously, but are to
be construed independently. The Respondent submitted that the post for
which the advertisement has been issued is for the candidates who will
regulate law and order of the State and if a candidate has violated
clause 11.10 by making multiple applications, such candidates have
played fraud and are not fit for being considered for the post. The
Respondents submitted that from the conduct and acts of the Petitioners
it is very clear that they have intentionally made more than one
application by giving different mobile number, email ids etc. The
Respondents, therefore, supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed
for dismissal of the present petition.
14 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and
learned counsel for the Respondents and with their assistance have
perused the documents annexed to the petition.
8. 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
and its English translation.
"४) उमे दवारांचे अर्ज ऑनलाईन (Online) पध्दतीने स्विकारण्यात ये णार
असल्याने अर्ज करतांना शै क्षणिक प्रमाणपत्रे / कागदपत्रे, अन्य प्रमाणपत्रे
जोडणे आवश्यक नाही. त्यामु ळे ऑनलाईन अर्जाची माहिती उमे दवारांनी
जाहिरातीमध्ये नमूद केले ल्या सर्व अटी, शै क्षणिक अर्हता व मागणीनु सार
आरक्षण, वयोमर्यादा शिथिलीकरण वगै रेची पात्रता तपासूनच भरावी.
ू ,
ऑनलाईन अर्जामध्ये उमे दवाराने त्यां च्या पात्रते नुसार काळजीपूर्वक सं पर्ण
अचूक व खरी माहिती भरणे आवश्यक आहे . ऑनलाईन पध्दतीने अर्ज भरतांना
काही चु का झाल्यास किंवा त्रुटी झाल्यास व भरतीच्या कोणत्याही टप्प्यावर
अर्ज नाकारला गे ल्यास त्याची सर्वस्वी जबाबदारी सं बंधीत उमे दवाराची राहील.
याबाबत उमे दवाराची तक् रार विचारात घे तली जाणार नाही. ऑनलाईन अर्जात
भरले ली माहिती अर्ज सादर केल्यानं तर बदलता ये णार नाही.
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
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 उमे द्वारास (१) जिल्हा पोलीस दलातील पोलीस आयु क्त / पोलीस
अधीक्षक यां च्या आस्थापने वरील पोलीस शिपाई चालक, (२) लोहमार्ग पोलीस
दलातील पोलीस शिपाई चालक व (३) राज्य राखीव पोलीस बलातील सशस्त्र
पोलीस शिपाई पदासाठी एक अशा एकू ण पदांसाठी तीन आवे दन अर्ज सादर
15 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
करता ये तील [महिला उमे वारांना राज्य राखीव पोलीस बलातील सशस्त्र
पोलीस शिपाई पदासाठी आवे दन अर्ज सादर करता ये णार नाही.
एकाच पोलीस घटकातील एकाच पदासाठी एकापे क्षा जास्त अर्ज सादर करता
ये णार नाहीत, (उदाहरणार्थ:- पोलीस आयु क्त, बृ हन्मुं बई यां च्या
आस्थापने वरील पोलीस शिपाई चालक पदासाठी एकापे क्षा जास्त अर्ज भरता
ये णार नाहीत किंवा राज्य राखीव पोलीस बलातील एकाच गटात सशस्त्र
पोलीस शिपाई पदासाठी एकापे क्षा जास्त अर्ज भरता ये णार नाहीत). जर एका
उमे दवाराने एकाच पोलीस घटकातील एकाच पदासाठी एकापे क्षा अधिक अर्ज
केले लें आहे त. असे आढळू न आले तर अशा उमे दवारांची उमे दवारी रद्द केली
जाईल.
एकाच पदासाठी विविध पोलीस घटकांत आवे दन अर्ज सादर करता ये णार
नाहीत.
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.
Applications for one and the same post cannot be submitted in
various Police Units.
११.१७ जर कोणत्याही उमे दवाराने एकापे क्षा अधिक लॉगिन आयडीसह नोंदणी
केली असे ल तर उमे दवारांची पहिली यशस्वी नोंदणी फक्त पु ढील प्रक्रिया
जसे हॉल तिकीट, पं रीक्षे त उपस्थिती, गु णवत्ता यादी आणि अन्य सं बंधित
प्रक्रियांसाठी विचारात घे ण्यात ये ईल. कोणत्याही डु प्लीकेट नोंदणीस अवै ध
नोंदणी मानले जाईल आणि कोणत्याही प्रकारचे पै से परतफेड केले जाणार
नाहीत. उमे दवाराद्वारे प्रथम यशस्वी नोंदणीमध्ये काही चु कीची माहिती
दे ण्यात आली असे ल तर कृपया या विषयाबद्दलची योग्य प्रक्रिया जाणून
घे ण्यासाठी [email protected] वर लिहा किंवा टोल फ् री
क् रमांक १८००३०००७७६६ वर कॉल करा.
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
16 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
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 निवडीच्या कोणत्याही टप्प्यावर (निवड प्रक्रिया सु रु झाल्यानं तर किंवा
नियु क्तीनं तर कोणत्याही क्षणी) अर्जदार विहित अर्हता धारण न करणारा
आढळल्यास, ऑनलाईन अर्जात दिले ली माहिती / अगर कागदपत्रे खोटी
सादर केल्याचे किंवा खरी माहिती दडवून ठे वल्यांचे निदर्शनास आल्यास
शासनाची दिशाभूल केल्यामु ळे त्यां च्यावर प्रत्यक्ष अप्रत्यक्ष दबाव आणल्यास
अथवा गै रप्रकारचा अवलं ब केल्यास त्यास निवड प्रक्रिये तन ू वगळण्यात
ये ईल व नियु क्ती झाली असल्यास कोणतीही पूर्वसूचना न दे ता त्याची नियु क्ती
समाप्त करण्यात ये वन ू त्यां च्या विरुध्द कायदे शीर कारवाई करण्यात ये ईल.
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,
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. विशे ष सूचनाः-
२३.१.१ उमे दवारां च्या माहितीकरिता www.mahapariksha.gov.in या
सं केतस्थळावर प्रस्तावित परीक्षे ची कार्यप्रणाली (Software) कशी
हाताळावी हे समजण्याकरिता नमु ना परीक्षे ची लिं क (link) उपलब्ध करुन
दे ण्यात ये ईल.
२३.१.२ उमे दवारांना सरावासाठी (Mock Test) पीडीएफ स्वरुपात नमु ना
प्रश्नपत्रिका www.mahapariksha.gov.in या सं केतस्थळावर उपलब्ध करुन
दे ण्यात ये णार आहे .
२३.२ ऑनलाईन अर्जामध्ये भरले ली माहिती आणि कागदपत्रे तपासणीच्या
वे ळी सादर केले ली कागदपत्रे यात तफावत आढळल्यास उमे दवाराची निवड
भरती प्रक्रिये च्या कोणत्याही टप्प्यावर रद्द होऊ शकेल अथवा उमे दवाराने
17 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
मागितले ले सामाजिक समांतर आरक्षण अथवा वयोमर्यादा शिचील करणे
इत्यादी बदल/ सवलती नामं जरू करण्यात ये तील.
२३.३ परीक्षा कक्षात परीक्षा केंद्राच्या परिसरात मोबाईल फोन अथवा इतर
कोणत्याही प्रकारची इले क्ट् रॉनिक साधने आणण्यास व वापरण्यास सक्त मनाई
आहे .
२३.४ प्रमाणपत्र पडताळणीच्या वे ळी प्रमाणपत्रांमध्ये त्रुटी अढळल्यास /
माहिती खोटी आढळल्यास अथवा एखादे प्रमाणपत्र सादर न केल्यास
उमे दवाराला त्याचवे ळी पु ढील प्रक्रिये साठी अपात्र केले जाईल.
२३.५ जाहिरातीतील नमु द केले ले सर्व शासन निर्णय/ अधिसूचना / शासन
परिपत्रके ही महाराष्ट् र शासनाच्या www.maharashtra.gov.in या
वे बसाईटवर उपलब्ध आहे त. तसे च महापरीक्षा पोर्टलचे सं केतस्थळावर लिं क
करण्यात आले ले आहे त.
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).
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.
18 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
२४. उमे दवारांना काही अडचण भासल्यास खालील दिले ल्या हे ल्पलाईनवर
वे ळेत सं पर्क साधावा.
अ.क् र. सं स्था / कार्यालयाचे नाव दुरध्वनी / मोबाईल क् रमांक
१. ऑनलाईन आवे दन अर्ज भरण्यास काही अडचण [email protected]
असल्यास/प्रवे श पत्राबाबत विचारणा .in
करण्यासाठी महापरीक्षा पोर्टलशी सं बंधीत हे ल्प लाईन १८००३०००७७६६
सं केतस्थळ व दरू ध्वनी क् रमांक
२. अपर पोलीस महासं चालक, प्रशिक्षण व खास ०२२-२२८५५६१४
पथके, महाराष्ट् र राज्य, मुं बई (कार्यालयीन
वे ळेत)
३. अपर पोलीस महासं चालक, प्रशिक्षण व खास adg.trg.office@mahapolice.
पथके, महाराष्ट् र राज्य, मुं बई. यांचे e-mail id:- gov.in
४. पोलीस आयु क्त, बृ हन्मुं बई कार्यालय (पोलीस ०२२-२४१२३१११
भरती कक्ष) दरू ध्वनी क् रमांक
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
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.
9. Clause 11.10 of the advertisement provides that a candidate
can make three applications, one each for three posts for which the
vacancy exists. For example, Mr. A can apply for the post of District
Police Constable Driver as well as Police Constable Driver in Railway
19 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
Force as well as Armed Police Constable in State Reserve Police Force.
The said clause 11.10 further expressly prohibits by using negative
language that more than one application cannot be submitted for one
and the same post in one and the same Police Unit. The illustration
given in the bracketed portion of the said clause makes it very clear that
a candidate can make only one application for each of the advertised
post and he cannot make more than one application for the same post.
Clause 11.10 further expressly provides that if a candidate is found to
have submitted more than one application for one and the same post
then the candidature of the said candidate shall stand cancelled. In our
view, clause 11.10 is very clear and therefore the contention of the
Petitioners that on a reading of clause 11.10 a candidate can make more
than one application for the same post in different district cannot be
accepted. There does not appear to be any confusion in the
drafting/reading and understanding of clause 11.10.
10. It is also important to note that the Petitioners have changed
their profile while applying in more than one district by either giving
different mobile number or different email id or by changing the spelling
of the names of their father or any other person etc. We fail to
understand that if the Petitioners understanding of clause 11.10 was
that they are entitled to make more than one application for the same
20 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
post qua each of different district then why they changed their profile
while making application qua different district. This conduct of the
Petitioners puts a question mark on their intention while making the
application. We are conscious of the fact that due to huge
unemployment a candidate would strive every possible attempt to get
the employment for his living, but in the attempt to do so one cannot
adopt unfair means to get the employment moreso when the post for
which the advertisement is issued relates to Police Force which is a
disciplined force.
11. Paragraph 2 of Clause 11.10 of 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 is very clear, like Nelson's
eye, which expressly prohibits the candidate from making application for
the same post in more than one police unit. Therefore, even if the
contention of the Petitioners by relying 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
21 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
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 a 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 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 to
the plain language of the same. This Court cannot adopt interpretative
rewriting of clause 11.10 of the advertisement.
12. The contention of the Petitioners that clause 11.17 assists their
case is also misconceived. 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
22 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
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
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 to 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 objective behind the same is to curb the
misuse of a person 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 an 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.
13. Clause 14.4 of the advertisement provides that if at any stage
of selection or after the appointment it is found that a candidate has
submitted false information or has concealed the true information or has
adopted improper course, then his name shall be removed from the
selection process and then his appointment shall be terminated if he has
23 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
been appointed, without even giving any prior notice. In the instant case
before us, the conduct of the Petitioners of giving different email ids,
different cell numbers, changing the profile names of the father etc.
would certainly fall within the phrase "improper course as specified in
clause 14.4" and it would entitle the Respondent-State to reject a
candidate from the selection process or to terminate his appointment.
Therefore, in our view, no fault can be found in the Tribunal's order and
the acts of the Respondent-State in disqualifying the Petitioners from
selection process or from termination of employment.
14. If the Petitioners had any doubt on the interpretation of clause
11.10 (although according to us it is very clear), the Petitioners could
have approached the help-line provided in clause 24 for necessary
clarification. It is not the case of the Petitioners that on approaching the
help-line the mode adopted by them was confirmed by the office of the
help-line or the office of the help-line has approved the mode adopted
by the Petitioners. Therefore even on this count, the submission of the
Petitioners cannot be accepted.
15. It is important to note that around 1,17,000 candidates
applied for the post out of which 2897 candidates were found to have
adopted the course of making multiple applications. It means that only
2.47% of the total candidates adopted such course while 97.5% of the
24 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
candidates correctly made one application for one post on a proper
understanding of clause 11.10. If the Petitioners' contention on a
reading of clause 11.10 is to be accepted then we fail to understand why
miniscule percentage of the candidates understood so and why almost
97.5% candidates understood the clause correctly. In our view,
accepting the submission of the Petitioners would amount to giving
premium to such conduct and punishing the prudent candidates which
course of action cannot be approved by this Court, irrespective of the
post for which the vacancy has been advertised and although moreso in
the present case where vacancy is in the Police Force.
16. 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 a candidate would be rejected at any stage of the selection process
and the candidate only will be solely responsible. This clause also
justifies the action of the Respondent-State and which has been
approved by the Tribunal for disqualifying the candidates and/or for
terminating their employment.
17. In this connection, we are reminded of a leading decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balram Bahira & Ors. 1 where the
Supreme Court has noted the responsibility of Courts to guard against
1 (2017) 8 SCC 670
25 of 26
Sayyed 2-WP.7650.2023 (J).doc
fraudulent employment, especially when such appointment is obtained
by perpetuating fraud upon the authorities and this Court cannot permit
such practice to gain public employment. Paragraph No.4 of the said
decision reads as under :-
"4. ...Public employment is a significant source of social mobility.
Access to education opens the doors to secure futures. As a matter
of principle, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, the
court must weigh against an interpretation which will protect
unjust claims over the just, fraud over legality and expediency over
principle. As the nation evolves, the role of institution the court
must be as an which abides by constitutional principle, enforces the
rule of law and reaffirms the belief that claims based upon fraud,
expediency and subterfuge will not be recognised. these parameters
are established clear judicial formulation Once with a individual
cases should pose no problem. Usurpation of constitutional benefits
by persons who are not entitled to them must be answered by the
court in the only way permissible for an institution which has to
uphold the rule of law. Unless the courts were to do so, it would
leave open a path of incentives for claims based on fraud to survive
legal gambits and the creativity of the disingenuous."
18. In view of above, we do not find any fault in the action of the
Respondent-State and the order of the Tribunal confirming the same.
The Writ Petitions are dismissed. In view of disposal of the Writ
Petitions, the Interim Application does not survive and is accordingly
disposed of. No costs.
19. 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.]
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
26 of 26
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/05/2024 14:00:30
