Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Public Service Commission ... vs Pooja Babasaheb Jadhav on 17 April, 2025
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:11096-DB
1 Judgment in wp 13410-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13410 OF 2024
Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary
Trishul Gold Field, Plot No.34,
Sector - 11, Opp. Sarovar Vihar,
Belapur, CBD, Navi Mumbai - 400614 ... PETITIONER
(Original Respondent)
VERSUS
Pooja Babasaheb Jadhav,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
Resident of : At Kailas Nagar,
Zipri Tanda, Taluka : Ambad,
District : Jalna ... RESPONDENT
(Original Applicant)
....
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Rohit S. Sarvadnya, Advocate for the Respondent
Mr. Anand S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Intervenor
....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 03/04/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17/04/2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Sandipkumar C. More, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission
stage.
2 Judgment in wp 13410-24
2. The petitioner - Maharashtra Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as 'MPSC') is challenging the judgment and
order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned
Tribunal') in Original Application No.803 of 2024 filed by the
present respondent, directing her to be considered from DT (A)
female category in the recruitment process vide advertisement dated
23/06/2022 issued by the petitioner- MPSC for the post of Police
Sub-inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'PSI').
3. The petitioner - MPSC had published an advertisement No.53
of 2022 for filling up posts of PSI on 23/06/2022 and also
published another advertisement No.1 of 2023 for filling up posts of
clerk-cum-typist on 29/08/2023. The present respondent applied
for both the posts by two separate applications mentioning her
category as Other Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as 'OBS').
However, the respondent then filed an Original Application No.803 of
2024 before the learned Tribunal seeking direction to the petitioner
- MPSC for permitting her to correct her caste / category in her
applications submitted for both the aforesaid posts namely PSI and
clerk-cum-typist. It was contended by the respondent that she
inadvertently shown her in OBC category instead of DT (A) category,
but the petitioner - MPSC under letter dated 31/07/2024 intimated
3 Judgment in wp 13410-24
her that she would be considered on merit for Open (general seats).
As such, the petitioner - MPSC had rejected her claim for correction
as prayed. However, the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid original
application under the impugned judgment directed the petitioner -
MPSC to consider respondent from DT (A) category for the selection
process of PSI.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner- MPSC submits that the
learned Tribunal has definitely committed an error while giving
such directions since the mistake as claimed by the respondent in
respect of mentioning her category wrongly, was inadvertent and
unintentional. He pointed out that the respondent had also applied
for the post of clerk-cum-typist as per the subsequent advertisement
of the petitioner - MPSC and in that selection process also she
mentioned her category as 'OBC'. According to him, as per the
general instructions No.1.2.8, change in claim in the application
was to be made prior to final date of filing the application and that
too after deposit of requisite fees and cancellation of earlier
application. Thus, he contended that the respondent did not avail
the said opportunity despite knowing that she had erroneously
mentioned her category in the application as 'OBC'. As such, he
prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned
Tribunal.
4 Judgment in wp 13410-24
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned order and also relied on following
judgments.
A) Mr. Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India
and others in Writ Petition No. 11807 of
2024 delivered by this court on 20/09/2024;
B) Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. The State of
Bihar and others, arising out of SLP (C)
No.12230/2023, delivered on 02/01/2024 &
C) Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni vs. Maharashtra
Public Service Commission, arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 25347 of
2024.
6. According to him, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well this Court in
the aforesaid judgments had granted relief to the concerned
petitioners to correct their mistakes in the application wherein they
had erroneously mentioned their qualification or category.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the intervenor also
supported the argument made on behalf of the petitioner - MPSC
and submitted that the intervenor is in fact a successful candidate
in the category of DT (A) as being the last candidate in the merit in
that category.
5 Judgment in wp 13410-24
8. Admittedly, the respondent while filling the applications for
both the posts, has mentioned her category from OBC and did not
avail the first opportunity available to her for changing claim that
she belongs to DT (A) category. It is specifically mentioned in the
general instructions at No.(a)1.2.8 as follows :
"1.2.8 vtZ lknj dsY;kuarj vtkZe/;s pqdhpk nkok dsyk vlY;kps mesnokjP;k
fun'kZukl vkY;kl vFkok dks.krkgh nkok cnyk;pk vlY;kl vtZ lknj
dj.;kP;k vafre fnukadkiwohZ fofgr 'kqYdkpk Hkj.kk dsY;kuarj vtZ jí
d:u vko';d lq/kkj.kkalg uO;kus vtZ djrk ;sbZy-"
In the candidate found out that he / she has filled up the form
erroneously, made wrong claims / want to change claims, then he /
she can fill up online application form alongwith requisite fees
before the last date. The respondent is now claiming that she had
inadvertently shown her category as 'OBC' instead of DT (A).
However, she was having such opportunity for necessary correction
in respect of category under the aforesaid instructions. It is
extremely important to note that the respondent as per the first
advertisement for the post of PSI mentioned her category as 'OBC'
and even in the subsequent advertisement for the post of clerk-cum-
typist she again mentioned the same category. It is significant to
note that the learned Tribunal has considered the act of respondent
choosing her category 'OBC' being an inadvertent and unintentional
act. However, considering the aforesaid conduct of the respondent
6 Judgment in wp 13410-24
of mentioning of her category in 'OBC' in subsequent application
also, it cannot be said that it was an inadvertent and unintentional
mistake.
9. This Court under order dated 24/03/2025 in Writ Petition No.
1282 of 2016 had taken a view that despite three chances in the
advertisement concerned in that petition for rectification of their
mistake, the petitioner therein failed to rectify the same and
therefore, his claim was rejected for considering his candidature
from VJ General category.
10. It is also important to note that intervenor Manisha Ramdal
Gusinge has also taken objection to the impugned judgment passed
by the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, intervenor belongs to DT (A)
category as per the caste certificate issued by SDO, Ambad dated
21/11/2018. Further, she is a successful candidate from DT (A)
female category in the general merit list published on 01/08/2024
for the post of PSI. In the said category there are 6 posts and the
intervenor stands at No.6, which is at bottom of the list for the said
category. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that if
the order of the learned Tribunal granting permission for the
respondent to participate in the selection process from DT (A)
category is implemented, then the intervenor would be ousted from
7 Judgment in wp 13410-24
the entire selection process despite being successful in the said
category. It is highly important to note that the intervenor was not
aware about the proceeding before the learned Tribunal filed by the
respondent. Thus, obviously order impugned was passed without
giving her an opportunity of being heard. It is a cardinal principle
of law that nobody should be condemned without an opportunity of
being heard. Thus, the impugned order being passed by the learned
Tribunal behind back of the intervenor, definitely affects her.
11. Considering all these facts, it has been revealed that the
respondent did not avail the opportunity of correcting her category
in the application for the post of PSI as per the general instructions
as mentioned above. Moreover, she repeated the same mistake by
showing her from 'OBC' category even in the subsequent selection
process for the post of clerk-cum-typist. As such, it can not be said
that her act of showing her in 'OBC' category was inadvertent and
unintentional as held by the learned Tribunal. Further, the
intervenor will be unnecessarily ousted from the selection process
despite being successful and selected from DT (A) category for the
post of PSI without there being any fault on her part. This aspect is
not at all considered by the learned Tribunal while directing the
petitioner to be considered from DT (A) female category. In view of
these aspects, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal
8 Judgment in wp 13410-24
has to be set aside. Accordingly, we allow the petition and the
impugned judgment and order dated 11/10/2024 passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.803
of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside and the aforesaid original
application stands dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) (R. G. AVACHAT, J.)
VS Maind/-
