Bombay High Court
Varsha Prakash Mandale vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 October, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:38997-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9878 OF 2023
Varsha Prakash Mandale, Student
R/of Kanchanwadi -431 001. .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through General Administration Department & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashish S. Gaikwad, Ms. Savita
Gaikwad and Mr. Anirudh R. Rote, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate, with Mr. P.C. Kamble, Assistant
Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.
Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni with Mr. Siddharth Shitole, Advocates for the
Respondent-MPSC.
Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ketan Joshi and Mr. V.V.
Mohite, Advocates for Respondent Nos.4 to 89.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
The date on which the arguments were heard : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2024.
The date on which the Judgment is pronounced : 03RD OCTOBER, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
[ Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. ]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for
the parties.
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 21 st
July 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
Aurangabad in Original Application No.299 of 2022. By the said order, the
Original Application preferred by the petitioner and one another seeking
revision in the syllabus as well as weightage of marks at the Maharashtra
Gazetted Technical Services Competitive Examination held pursuant to the
advertisement dated 18th February 2022 has been dismissed.
3. Facts in brief are that on 18 th February 2022, an advertisement was
issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission - "MPSC" seeking to
undertake recruitment on the posts of "Deputy Director, Agriculture &
others, Group-A", "Taluka Agriculture Officer & others, Group-B" and
"Agriculture Officer & others, Group-C". Clause 7.5.2 of the said
advertisement prescribed the equivalence for seeking appointment on the
advertised posts. Bachelor of Science graduates from six different streams
were eligible to compete in the recruitment. The petitioner and another
applicant being graduates under the Agricultural Engineering stream were
prejudiced with the reduction in the weightage of marks from 280 to 16
under the syllabus that was framed for the preliminary examination. On
that premise they approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at
Aurangabad - "Tribunal" by filing the aforesaid Original Application. The
Tribunal found that the MPSC was competent to prescribe the syllabus for
the examination in question. It had determined the weightage given to
various subjects after consulting experts in the field. On that basis, the
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
Tribunal found that the grievance raised by the applicants before it did not
warrant any interference. Hence, by the order dated 21 st July 2022,
Original Application No.299 of 2022 came to be dismissed. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner who is one of the two
applicants before the Tribunal has filed this writ petition. The other
applicant has not chosen to challenge the said order.
4. Mr. Mihir Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner while
raising challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that much
prior to the holding of the preliminary examinations, the MPSC on 16 th
June 2021 had declared that there was no change sought to be
undertaken in the scheme of the recruitment examination as well as the
syllabus for it. The petitioner being a graduate under the stream of
Agricultural Engineering accordingly undertook preparations. However,
disregarding the aforesaid declaration, a new syllabus came to be notified
on 11th February 2022. Hence, a representation dated 16 th February 2022
came to be immediately made raising a grievance in that regard. Shortly
thereafter, within a week, the MPSC issued advertisement no.017/2022 on
18th February 2022. Therein the syllabus of the examination was indicated
which had undergone a drastic change. The weightage given to the subject
of Agricultural Engineering initially was 280 marks which came to be
reduced to 16 marks. Shortly thereafter on 9 th March 2022, the petitioner
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
approached the Tribunal and filed the Original Application. Despite
aforesaid, the preliminary examinations were conducted on 30 th April
2022. Before the Tribunal, the MPSC filed its affidavit wherein it was
stated that it had received representations since 2016 seeking revision in
the syllabus on the ground that Agricultural Engineering students were
getting more benefit under the earlier syllabus. The matter was referred to
five Universities but in absence of any agreement on the further course of
action, the MPSC finalized the scheme. It considered the total in-take
capacity for Degree Courses of various equivalent disciplines in the five
Agricultural Universities and finalized the syllabus. This aspect was not at
all relevant for the present purpose. It was pointed out that for a period of
almost thirty years from 1991 to 2021, there was no change whatsoever in
the relevant syllabus. The Hon'ble Governor had also been pleased to take
cognizance of the said matter, which was evident from the communication
dated 11th April 2023 issued by him. Hence, the decision of the MPSC to
modify the syllabus despite opposition by the various Universities, the
Hon'ble Governor and other stakeholders was unreasonable. Though the
MPSC had jurisdiction to prescribe the syllabus, the same had been
undertaken in an arbitrary manner. A reference was made to the decisions
in Union of India and Anr. Vs. International Trading Co. and Anr., AIR
2003 SC 3983 and Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors., along with
connected matters, 2023 SCC OnLine 985 . It was incumbent upon the
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
MPSC to satisfy the need for such change of syllabus. As a result of such
change, the students with Agricultural Engineering background were
virtually prevented from effectively participating in the recruitment
process. The Tribunal erred in not considering these relevant aspects and
accepted the justification furnished by the MPSC based on the in-take
capacity without any justifiable reason. Since the MPSC failed to produce
all relevant material on the basis of which such change was effected, the
conclusion drawn by the Tribunal was incorrect. It was thus submitted that
as the MPSC failed to explain the necessity for undertaking a change in
the syllabus, this Court ought to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
5. Mr. Anil Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State
Government supported the order passed by the Tribunal. He submitted
that MPSC was empowered to prescribe the syllabus for undertaking
recruitment. After considering all relevant aspects, this exercise had been
undertaken. Larger public interest in permitting the recruitment to be
taken to its logical end ought to prevail. Though the process of
recruitment had concluded, in view of the statement made on behalf of
the State Government in the present proceedings, the appointment orders
to the successful candidates could not be issued. The vacant posts
therefore ought to be permitted to be filled in. He therefore submitted that
there was no case made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
6. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-MPSC also opposed the writ petition. He referred to the
Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2005 and
especially Rule 4(3) thereof. The MPSC was duly authorized to prescribe
the syllabus, which it had done after considering all relevant aspects. He
further referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the MPSC before the
Tribunal and submitted that no fault whatsoever could be found in the
exercise undertaken by it. Of the various candidates appearing, there were
only two candidates who had approached the Tribunal. After its decision,
only one from those two applicants had approached this Court. He
therefore submitted that there was no reason for this Court to interfere in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate for respondent nos.4
to 89, who were the successful candidates at the said recruitment, also
opposed the writ petition. He submitted that initially these respondents
had preferred Interim Application No.17591 of 2023 seeking leave to be
impleaded in the writ petition. This prayer was granted on 19 th March
2024. He submitted that after the syllabus of the aforesaid examination
was published on 16th June 2021, the final examination had been held
after about eight months from the same. Since the change of the syllabus,
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
two batches had participated in the recruitment process without any
grievance. He invited attention to the Circular issued by the MPSC on 18 th
December 2020 wherein it was stated that the MPSC had announced that
henceforth a Common Preliminary Examination known as "Maharashtra
Gazetted Technical Services Combined Preliminary Examination" would be
held. It was thereafter that the necessary exercise to undertake a change in
the syllabus was gone through and with a view to have a level playing
field, the syllabus had been modified. Reference was also made to Clause
7.5.2 of the advertisement no.017/2022 dated 18 th February 2022
indicating the manner in which the marks were to be divided at the
examination. The Tribunal after considering all relevant aspects rightly
refused to interfere in the Original Application. In absence of any
jurisdictional error, it was submitted that the writ petition ought to be
dismissed.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with
their assistance, we have perused the documents on record. The grievance
raised by the petitioner is to the revision of the syllabus undertaken by the
MPSC in conducting of the "Maharashtra Gazetted Technical Services
Competitive Examinations". The advertisement in that regard was
published on 18th February 2022, the preliminary examination was held on
30th April 2022 and the main examination was held on 9 th October 2022.
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
As of today, the recruitment process has been completed. Of the numerous
candidates who had participated in the recruitment process, only two
applicants having graduation with Agricultural Engineering approached
the Tribunal seeking to raise a grievance with regard to the change
effected in the syllabus. After the Tribunal declined to interfere at their
behest, only one applicant has preferred to approach this Court in the
present writ petition.
9. According to the petitioner, the weightage that was being given to
the candidates having a Degree in Science with Agricultural Engineering
was operating for a considerable period. On 16 th June 2021, the MPSC
declared that though a common recruitment exercise would be undertaken
as per the Circular dated 18th December 2020, there was no change made
in the syllabus of the examination. However, shortly prior to the issuance
of the advertisement no.017/2022 dated 18 th February 2022, the new
syllabus was notified on 11th February 2022. The advertisement in
question was issued on 18th February 2022. The same indicates that after
revision of the syllabus, the marks prescribed under the head "Agricultural
Engineering" became 16 when it was 280 earlier. According to the
petitioner, this reduction in marks for Agricultural Engineering has caused
prejudice. The issue therefore to be considered is whether the decision
taken by the MPSC to change the syllabus and undertake recruitment is
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
unreasonable and arbitrary for this Court to intervene and exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In our view, considering the material on record, it cannot be said
that the decision taken by the MPSC to change the syllabus with regard to
grant of weightage of marks to various streams of subjects is either
unreasonable or arbitrary. Under the Rules of Procedure, 2005 framed by
the MPSC, it has the authority to frame a scheme for holding a competitive
examination for recruitment or departmental examinations. Rule 4(3) is
clear in that regard. In the affidavit filed by the MPSC before the Tribunal,
it has indicated the requirement of revising the syllabus and the manner in
which the syllabus was revised. It has stated that earlier the syllabus was
framed by it in 2011, which underwent a change in 2016. After 2016, it
received various representations stating that candidates from the
Agricultural Engineering stream were benefiting from the existing
syllabus. The MPSC therefore considered the representations which stated
that other faculties like horticulture, biotechnology and forestry were not
getting similar opportunities and hence decided to review the same. It
invited draft syllabus from five Agricultural Universities in the State of
Maharashtra. The drafts received were then sent to a Body of Experts for
consideration. However, in view of there being some disagreement with
regard to the branches of Agriculture and Agricultural Engineering, the
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
MPSC constituted a Three Member Committee to finalize the syllabus.
After such syllabus was framed, it was placed before the MPSC for
approval and after considering the in-take capacity for Degree Courses of
various equivalent disciplines at the five Agricultural Universities, the
scheme for holding the examinations and its syllabus with allotment of
marks was finalized. It has further stated that in 2021, no advertisement
was issued. The syllabus for the preliminary examination was however
published on 16th June 2021, which was well in advance of the
advertisement dated 18th February 2022.
11. From the aforesaid, it becomes clear that the change in syllabus has
been undertaken after due consideration of all relevant aspects. It must be
noted that the MPSC being the agency empowered to undertake
recruitment in the light of the provisions of Articles 315 and 320 of the
Constitution of India, it is empowered to decide the mode and manner of
undertaking such recruitment. It is a Body of Experts operating in that
field and is entitled to consider the manner in which the syllabus ought to
be determined for undertaking recruitment. We do not find that there has
been any arbitrary action on the part of the MPSC in seeking to revise the
syllabus. As stated above, except two applicants before the Tribunal and
one petitioner in the present writ petition, other candidates did not chose
to question the revision of syllabus. It is not for this Court to substitute its
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
opinion in place of the opinion expressed by the Body of Experts, which is
a specialized Commission handling the subject of recruitment. In any
event, an alternate course that could have been followed by the MPSC in
place of the revised syllabus is not even suggested by the petitioner.
12. It was urged that the basis of taking into consideration the intake
capacity for Degree Courses of various equivalent disciplines at the five
Agricultural Universities was not a relevant factor to be considered. We do
not find that this factor is so irrelevant that it could never have been taken
into consideration by an Expert Body. If on the basis of its experience and
expertise, the MPSC sought to take into consideration the intake capacity
of various Institutions at the Degree Courses, there would be no reason to
question this course as adopted. Degree holders constitute the entire pool
through whom such recruitment is undertaken. The Tribunal after
considering all relevant aspects did not find substance in the challenge
raised in the Original Application. In the light of these aspects, the
decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner do
not assist his submissions. In absence of any jurisdictional error being
committed by the Tribunal in refusing to grant any relief to the petitioner,
we are not inclined to intervene in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
13. For aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the challenge as
raised to the order dated 21st July 2022 passed by the Tribunal in Original
WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
Dixit
Application No.299 of 2022. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Rule
stands discharged with no order as to costs.
14. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the
interim direction that was initially granted be continued for a period of
two weeks. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondents. Considering the reasons given, we are not inclined to
continue the statement made on behalf of the respondents. Hence, the
request is rejected.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
Digitally
SNEHA SNEHA
ABHAY WP-9878-2023-Judgment.doc
ABHAY DIXIT
Date:
DIXIT
Dixit
2024.10.03
17:19:24
+0530
