Bombay High Court
Balkrishna Bhausaheb Dhakane And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 7 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:6831-DB
1 WP-12842-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12842 OF 2024
1. Akshay s/o. Satish Shinde,
Age 29 years, Occu. Arogya Sevak,
R/o. R.No.3, Shramsafalya Housing
Society, Bajajnagar, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar
2. Gopinath s/o. Ramprasad Palwe,
Age 29 years, Occu. Arogya Sevak,
R/o. Sukhchain Hostel, Narali Bag,
Chh. Sambhajinagar, Taluka and
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar
3. Pravin s/o. Dhanji Shejul,
Age 29 years, Occu. Arogya Sevak,
R/o. Didgaon, Taluka Sillod,
District Chh. Sambhajinagar
4. Datta s/o. Prabhu Shinde,
Age 27 years, Occu. Arogya Sevak
R/o. Narali Bag, Near Anjali Talkies,
Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad
Taluka and District Aurangabad
5. Sameer s/o. Dayanand Dudhe,
Age 27 years, Occu. Arogya Sevak
R/o. At post Ghatkul, Taluka Pombhurna,
District Chandrapur .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayatraj
Department, Bandhkam Bhavan-35,
Marjban Road, Fort, Mumbai
2. The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad/
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Through its Chief Executive Officer
3. The Zilla Parishad, Beed
Through its Chief Executive Officer
2 WP-12842-24.odt
4. The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur
Through its Chief Executive Officer .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13481 OF 2024
IN WRIT PETITION NO.12842 OF 2024
1. Balkrishna Bhausaheb Dhakane,
Age 36 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Shevgaon, Taluka Shevgaon,
District Ahilyanagar (MH)
2. Pradyum Pandharinath Bundhe,
Age 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Tandulvadi, Post Daregaon,
Taluka Sindakhedraja, Dist. Buldhana (MH)
3. Narendra Gulab Patil,
Age 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Takarkheda, Taluka Amalner,
District Jalgaon (MH)
4. Rhushikesh Rajendra Dandade,
Age 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Chikli, Taluka Chikli,
District Buldhana (MH)
5. Sangmeshwar Virbhadra Swami,
Age 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Sawargaon (Thot),
Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur (MH)
6. Akshay Kishor Jadhav,
Age 27 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. At Post Rajangav Khuri,
Taluka Paithan, District Chh. Sambhajinagar (MH)
7. Pradumn Pramod Shinde,
Age 25 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. At Post Wadi (Bamni),
Taluka and District Dharashiv (MH)
8. Vivek Balasaheb Daud,
Age 26 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. At Post Shivnagari, Kannad,
District Chh. Sambhajinagar (MH)
3 WP-12842-24.odt
9. Ajit Balwant Tadekar,
Age 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Near Ganpati Mandir,
Bembli, Taluka and District Dharashiv (MH)
10. Yogesh Dhawalkant Tribhuvan,
Age 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. 47 A Balaji Nagar,
Opp. Mahendra Hotel Sakri Road,
Dhule, District Dhule (MH) .. Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Bandkam Bhavan-35,
Marjban Road, Fort, Mumbai
2. The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad/
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Through its Chief Executive Officer
3. The Zilla Parishad, Beed
Through its Chief Executive Officer
4. The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur
Through its Chief Executive Officer
5. Akshay Satish Shinde,
Age 29 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. R.No.3, Shramsafalya Housing Society,
Bajaj Nagar, Chh. Sambhaji Nagar,
Taluka and District Chh. Sambhaji Nagar
6. Gopinath Ramprasad Palwe,
Age 29 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. Sukhchain Hostel,
Naralibag, Chh. Sambhaji Nagar
7. Pravin Dhanji Shejul,
Age 29 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. Didgaon, Taluka Sillod,
District Chh. Sambhaji Nagar (MH)
8. Datta Prabhu Shinde,
Age 27 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Narali Bagh, Near Anjali Talkies,
Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad,
Taluka and District Aurangabad (MH)
4 WP-12842-24.odt
9. Sameer Dayanand Dudhe,
Age 27 yeas, Occu. Education,
R/o. At Post Ghatkul, Taluka Pombhurna,
District Chandrapur (MH) .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1503 OF 2025
IN WRIT PETITION NO.12842 OF 2024
Maharashtra Rajya Hangami Favarni Karmchari
Ek Vel Samaveshan Kruti Samitee,
Through its Executive President
1. Ananda s/o. Narayan Dunde,
Age 45 years, Occu. Field Worker,
R/o. Yashodhara Nagar, CIDCO,
Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded
2. Madhav s/o. Narsing Mundhe,
Age 38 years, Occu. Field Worker,
R/o. Yashodhara Nagar, CIDCO,
Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded .. Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayatraj
Department, Bandhkam Bhavan-35,
Marjban Road, Fort, Mumbai
2. The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad/
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Through its Chief Executive Officer
3. The Zilla Parishad, Beed
Through its Chief Executive Officer
4. The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur
Through its Chief Executive Officer
5. Akshay Satish Shinde,
Age 29 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. R.No.3, Shramsafalya Housing Society,
Bajaj Nagar, Chh. Sambhaji Nagar,
Taluka and District Chh. Sambhaji Nagar
5 WP-12842-24.odt
6. Gopinath Ramprasad Palwe,
Age 29 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. Sukhchain Hostel,
Naralibag, Chh. Sambhaji Nagar
7. Pravin Dhanji Shejul,
Age 29 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. Didgaon, Taluka Sillod,
District Chh. Sambhaji Nagar (MH)
8. Datta Prabhu Shinde,
Age 27 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Narali Bagh, Near Anjali Talkies,
Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad,
Taluka and District Aurangabad (MH)
9. Sameer Dayanand Dudhe,
Age 27 yeas, Occu. Education,
R/o. At Post Ghatkul, Taluka Pombhurna,
District Chandrapur (MH) .. Respondents
Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr. A. S. Shinde, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1/State;
Mr. S. B. Ghute, Advocate for Respondent No.2;
Mr. L. H. Kawale, Advocate for Respondent No.3;
Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.4
Mr. Amol B. Chalak, Advocate for Applicants in CA/13481/2024;
Mr. Vishwajeet R. Jain, Advocate for Applicants in CA/1503/2025
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 06.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2025
JUDGMENT (Per : S. G. MEHARE, J.) :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6 WP-12842-24.odt
2. Pursuant to the advertisement No.1 of 2023, issued by
respondent No.2 / Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad / Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar, the petitioners are the candidates shown in the
merit list for the post of Arogya Sevak. After the merit list was
published, respondent No.1 through its Secretary issued a
communication dated 15.10.2024 directing the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad to appoint the candidates first, who acquired
experience as per Government Resolution dated 04.05.2025 in
preference to the petitioners/candidates as per the merit list. It is
the contention of the petitioners that they are meritorious
students. The Recruitment Rules cannot be changed suddenly
after the selection process has been completed. The recruitment
was regulated by the Rules framed by respondent No.1 on
04.06.2003. Giving preference to the candidates securing same
marks is no longer res integra by the various pronouncements of
this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
communication dated 15.10.2024 is contrary to the recruitment
Rules and against the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Therefore, they have prayed to quash and set
aside communication dated 15.10.2024.
3. The contesting respondent is the State. The State has filed
the affidavit-in-reply. They have denied the contention of the
petitioners. It is their case that vide notification dated 04.06.2003,
the recruitment to the post of Arogya Sevak (Purush) regulated by
7 WP-12842-24.odt
the Rules framed by respondent No.1. They were published after
the amendment to the Recruitment Rules. As per the eligibility for
recruitment it was mentioned that the preferences would be given
to the candidates who have passed Secondary School Certificate
Examination with Science subject and possess experience of
ninety (90) days under the Rashtriya Maleria Pratirodh Scheme.
The ratio of appointment by way of promotion was 10:90.
However, the ratio of appointment by way of nomination shall be
decided between Seasonal Spraying Field Workers and other
candidates is 50:40. 50% quota was for the seasonal spraying
field workers. The advertisement was clear that 50% seats were
for the seasonal spraying field worker. If the candidates having
experience of ninety (90) days seasonal spraying field worker
under the National Malaria Resistance Scheme are not available,
then candidates who have the Secondary School Certificate with
Science subject would be selected. They have referred to Rule
5(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services
(Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (for short, "Rules") and submitted that
in view of those Rules, respondent No.2 took a conscious decision
to fill the vacant posts of Arogya Sevak (Purush) and issued the
impugned communication. As per notification dated 04.06.2003,
the merit list should be prepared for the candidates having
minimum marks in the online written examination and the
candidates having experience of Seasonal Spraying Field Workers,
8 WP-12842-24.odt
they should be appointed first on that posts in terms of General
Administration, Government Resolution, dated 04.05.2022. In the
event the eligible candidates are not available and the posts
remained vacant, then the Chief Executive Officer and the
Divisional Commissioner should take necessary action as
mentioned in Rule 5 of the Rules. A separate merit list should be
prepared for the candidates who do not have seasonal spraying
field worker experience, but having higher marks in the written
examination and take an action to appoint them according to the
merit as per the Government Resolution dated 04.05.2022 for the
remaining vacant posts. In sum and substance, it is their
contention that the impugned communication is pursuant to the
Recruitment Rules. It is not the change of the game rule in the
midst. The petitioners were not eligible in the category which they
are seeking posting on the basis of merit. They have prayed to
dismiss the petition.
4. Civil Application No.13481 of 2024 for intervention is by the
candidates who have been selected. They have also supported
the Government and it is prayed to vacate interim protection
granted as per order dated 27.11.2024.
5. Another Civil Application No.1503 of 2025 for intervention
has been filed by Maharashtra Rajya Hangami Favarni Karmachari
Ek Vel Samaveshan Kruti Samitee and another. Their contention is
9 WP-12842-24.odt
that since the candidates are not available, the post should be
kept vacant and not to be filled from the other categories.
6. Heard Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioners at
length. His argument revolves around the changing the rules of
the game in the midst. He has vehemently argued that once the
petitioners were selected on the merit, they should have not be
deprived of recruiting against the candidates who possessed
Arogya Sevak certificate and less marks. He further argued that
there was no specific clarification as such. The impugned
communication is apparently in violation of the Rules. Similarly
situated Zilla Parishads have given the preference to meritorious
candidates. He would submit that merit should be preferred
against all other candidates. Once they have been selected based
on merit, they cannot be deprived of keeping them behind the
candidates who are less meritorious to the petitioners. He referred
to Clause 7 of the advertisement and pointed out the qualifications
of candidates for eligibility. The petitioners possess the
qualification for appointment as Arogya Sevak (Purush) 50%.
Interpreting the said clause, he has vehemently argued that the
intention of the employer was not specific that the meritorious
students would not be given preference and instead of them the
employees having experience of 90 days under the Rashtriya
Maleria Pratirodh Scheme would be considered. He would further
argue that the terms of the advertisement could not be changed,
10 WP-12842-24.odt
particularly, after the merit list has been published. It is arbitrary
and perverse and demoralizing the meritorious candidates. In no
case, particularly, relying on Rule 5(2) of the Rules, such
communication impugned before the Court could be issued.
7. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the following cases;
(i) Rajesh s/o. Dnyaneshwar Rathod and another vs. Mr. Balu s/o.
Namdev Bhosale and others, Writ Petition 2654 of 2023 with
Civil Application No.8958 of 2023, of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, dated 24.08.2023;
(ii) Upendra Narain Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2006 SCC OnLine All 709;
(iii) Suresh Kumar Bairagi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and
others, Writ Petition No.775 of 2010 and other Petitions, 2011
SCC OnLine Utt 308;
(iv) Rajveer Singh Kumawat and Others vs. Union of India and
others, 2018(3) RLW 2201 (Raj);
(v) Naveen Dahiya vs. State of Haryana, Laws (P&H)-2018-2-63;
(vi) Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Supreme Court, Civil Appeal Nos.429-430 of 2021, dated
dated 18.02.2021;
(vii) Ashok Ram Parhad and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Ors., Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.822 of 2023, dated
15.03.2023.
He submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
11 WP-12842-24.odt
8. The Recruitment Rules dated 19 March 2003 are applied to
the post of Aarogya Sevak (Purush). In those Rules, the term
"Seasonal Spraying Field Workers" has been defined. The "Higher
Secondary School certificate" has also been defined. The
Recruitment Rules are very specific. Referring to the Rules, the
learned A.G.P. would submit that the Recruitment Rules itself were
clear that the preference should be given to the candidates
possessing 90 days experience as seasonal spraying field workers.
The ratio of nomination from such category and other category
was 50:40 as contemplated in this Rules and that has been
correctly adhered to. The Rule of preference to the candidates
securing equal marks could not apply in this case for the reason
that these posts were advertised particularly for the candidates
having the experience as mentioned above. He also referred to the
advertisement and vehemently argued that 50% posts i.e. 57
posts were purely reserved for the candidates who have
experience. As mentioned above, the petitioners did not possess
experience certificates. Hence, in view of the above Rules, the
impugned communication has been issued. Thus, it does not
violate the Rules and not changing the rules of game in the midst.
The situation of the another Zilla Parishad was different. It was
depending on the candidates found eligible and in that situation
appropriate decision has been taken. Hence, the petitioners
cannot claim parity. The Rules are unambiguous and the
12 WP-12842-24.odt
petitioners have not been discriminated and that they have not
been completely eliminated. They may be considered after
posting the experienced candidates. He would submit that the
case laws relied by the petitioners would not assist them. The
conditions in the advertisement were unambiguous and free from
infirmity. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
9. A small question to be determined is, whether the impugned
communication dated 15.10.2024 is in violation of the Recruitment
Rules and the change of the rules of the game in the midst or after
the selection.
10. Both learned counsels have referred to clause (7) of the
advertisement which relates to the educational qualification for
the employment by nomination. Sub-clause (2) thereof was also
referred to. Referring these clauses, it has been interpreted by the
petitioners' counsel that primary educational qualification for the
post was 12th with Science subject. It was never disclosed in the
advertisement that the preference would be given to those
candidates who have experience as mentioned above. He would
submit that any other candidates who do not possess such
experience should have to complete the primary course in three
attempts within twelve months. Therefore, it cannot be said that
course is exclusively for the persons who holds experience of 90
days qualification.
13 WP-12842-24.odt
11. Clause (2) is reproduced for the sake of convenience which
reads thus;
2 vkjksX; lsod ¼iq:"k½ 50 foKku fo"k; ?ksoqu ek/;fed 'kkykar ijh{kk
¼gaxkeh Qokj.kh {ks= mRrh.kZ >kysys mesnokj vtZ dj.;kl ik=
deZpkjh½ vlrhy- jk"Vªh; eysfj;k izfrjks/k dk;ZdzekarxZr
gaxkeh {ks= deZpkjh Eg.kqu 90 fnolkapk
vuqHko /kkjdkauk izk/kkU; ns.;kr ;sbZy- T;kauh
cgqm|s'kh; vkjksX; deZpkÚ;kalkBh vl.kkjk 12
efgU;kpk eqyHkwr ikB;dze ;'kLohfjR;k iw.kZ
dsysyk ulsy rj v'kk mnesnokjkauh lnj
izf'k{k.k fu;qDrh uarj rhu la/khr ;'kLohfjR;k
iw.kZ dj.ks vko';d jkfgy-
jk"Vªh; eysfj;k izfrjks/k dk;ZdzekarxZr gaxkeh
{ks= deZpkjh Eg.kqu 90 fnolkapk vuqHko /kkjd
mesnokj miyC/k u >kY;kl foKku fo"k; ?ksoqu
ek/;fed 'kkykar ijh{kk mRrh.kZ >kysys
mesnokjkaph fuoM dj.;kr ;sbZy-
12. Recruitment Rules dated 19.03.2003 defines the term
"Seasonal Spraying Field Workers". Clause (3) of the Recruitment
Rules provides the method of the recruitment as seasonal spraying
employee (male) Gat "C". First clause speaks about the seniority.
Sub-clause (b) which is relevant to the question raised in this
matter is that the candidates who fulfill the conditions would be
appointed by nomination. First clause relates to the age. Second
clause is about holding the higher secondary school with Science
subject. However, it was provided that the candidates who have
90 days' experience as seasonal area employee would be given
preference. Ratio of the appointment by promotion and
nomination was 10:90 and ratio for the seasonal spraying
employee and other was 50:40.
14 WP-12842-24.odt
13. The case of Rajesh s/o. Dnyaneshwar Rathod (supra)
relied upon by the petitioners was on the fact that an
advertisement was issued in respect of Craft Instructors in the
Industrial Training Institute throughout the State (ITIs). The
Recruitment Rules were published under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The Recruitment Rules provide for minimum
educational qualification and experience for the course of craft
instructors which are in the ratio of 75:25 between promotees and
direct recruits respectively. The degree or diploma in the relevant
stream of engineering or ITI certificate after passing SCC with
Mathematics and Science subjects or equivalent examination was
also prescribed. The Director General Training (DGT), by the
communication dated 27.05.2014, informed that for appointments
to the post of instructors the candidate should have professional
qualification as ITI pass out with National Craft Instructor
Certificate for the trades where CIT Scheme course was available
and candidates with a degree or diploma in relevant field of
engineering having no CITS certificate to be appointed on
condition that they would complete the requisite CITS training
within prescribed period. It was thus directed that CITS
qualification should be an essential requirement for the post of
Craft Instructors. The impugned advertisement was issued without
amending the Recruitment Rules. The advertisement prescribes
that the preference would be given to CITS candidates in case the
15 WP-12842-24.odt
scores of candidates were equal. In that case, the issue of
supremacy of the Rules against the administrative guidelines was
involved. However, the Tribunal held that the administrative
guidelines issued by the DGT under Article 73 would not prevail
over Rule 10 Article 309. On these facts and issue involved in the
case, the Co-ordinate Bench held that the executive instructions /
administrative guidelines issued by DGT by resorting to Article 73
would not supersede the Recruitment Rules, 1983 framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, pursuant to which the
impugned advertisement was issued.
14. In the case of Upendra Narain Singh and others (supra),
the issue for determination before the Court was, whether the
directions issued by the Central Government on the
recommendations of the National Council of Vocational Training
(NCVT) are mandatory and binding upon the State Government
which has the powers under the proviso to Article 309 to frame
service rules subject to the provisions of the Constitution and acts
of appropriate Legislature and further having acted upon these
recommendations whether the State Government could have
again amended the Rules of 1991 to bring these qualifications is
arbitrary without a valid and justiciable reason. The issue involved
in the present case is not identical to the issue of that case. Hence,
it would not assist the petitioners.
16 WP-12842-24.odt
15. The issue before the Court in the case of Suresh Kumar
Bairagi (supra) was about essential qualification of candidates for
recruitment. The relevant Rule does not provide any relaxation in
respect of essential qualification but Rule 9(5) (as amended) of the
Rules provides that if candidates, having essential qualification of
C.T.I. certificate, are not available at the time of recruitment, other
qualified candidates may be appointed, provided that candidates
shall have to successfully complete the C.T.I./T.T.T.I. training within
four years from appointment at their own cost. However, after the
advertisement was published, the corrigendum dated 22.07.2010
imposing condition of experience certificate in the prescribed
proforma alongwith T.T.T.I. was removed with a clarification that
after final selection, the selected candidates will require to furnish
experience certificate. Further essential condition of driving license
was also removed and it was provided that selected candidates
will supply license within two years from the date of the
appointment. Discussing the relevant Recruitment Rules and the
law, it has been held that respondents have not committed any
illegality in considering the candidature of such candidates who
were having other essential qualification except C.T.I. certificate
and Rule 8(5)(a) of the Rules does not relax the essential
qualification of 'C.T.I. Certificate' in any manner. It is also
mentioned that Clause 3 of the corrigendum dated 22.07.2010
was held illegal because relaxation in essential condition of driving
17 WP-12842-24.odt
license for a period of two years from the date of appointment
cannot be granted. It was in violation of Service Rules. An
employee is supposed to have minimum required qualification at
the time of his recruitment. This case has altogether different
facts. Hence, it would not help the petitioners.
16. The case of Rajveer Singh Kumawat (supra) was about the
State Government allowing the person having lower qualification
to hold the posts, the rights of such aspirants having higher and
better technical qualifications, will be marred and violated, which
is unconstitutional being discriminatory and violative of their
constitutional rights and concept of equality. This case is again on
the different issue. Hence, would not assist the petitioners.
17. In case of Naveen Dahiya (supra), the criteria adopted for
selection was challenged. The advertisement was also impugned
on the ground that it was in violation of Rule 9(3) of the Industrial
Training Department, Haryana. The issue involved in this case was
different and it would not help the petitioners.
18. The case of Anmol Kumar Tiwari (supra) was on the facts
that 382 candidates were selected against 384 vacancies as
candidates belonging to SC Quota for the two posts of Sergeant
were not available. A High Level Committee was constituted by
the State Government to examine the irregularities in the selection
process. It was found that the select list was prepared wrongly by
18 WP-12842-24.odt
ignoring merit of candidates and by giving undue importance to
the preferences. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, had
cancelled the select list. 43 persons were appointed on the basis of
the revised select list that was prepared in accordance with the
recommendations of the Committee. 42 candidates were
terminated from their services. The High Court has allowed the
writ petition of those 42 persons holding that they cannot be held
responsible by committee in the matter of their selection and
there is no allegation of misrepresentation on their part. They
were directed to be appointed against the existing / future
vacancies and should be placed at the bottom of seniority list in
the revised merit list. Some intervenors who had secured more
marks than the petitioners appeared in the matter. However, the
Single Judge rejected their intervention on the ground that they
cannot be said to be similarly situated to the writ petitioners. The
State of Jharkhand had preferred Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)
against the said judgment. It was also dismissed. Hence, the
matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The main contention of
the appellants was that admittedly they were more meritorious
than the Writ Petitioners. The intervenors should have been issued
the appointment as they were high on merit. However, so far as
the claim of the intervenors who were meritorious, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the appointment of persons with lesser
merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be in
19 WP-12842-24.odt
violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It
has been further observed that the intervenors secured more
marks than the writ petitioners. After cancellation of appointment
of the writ petitioners, 43 persons were appointed from the revised
select list. By the appointment of 43 persons, the number of posts
that were advertised i.e. 384 have been filled up. The intervenors
have no right to appointment to posts beyond those advertised.
Finally, the Court expressed disinclination to direct appointment of
the intervenors as selection in issue pertain to an advertisement
issued in 2008 and upheld the judgment of the High Court.
19. The case of Ashok Ram Parhad (supra) was about the inter
se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. In this case, it
has been held in service jurisprudence the service rules are liable
to prevail. There can be Government resolutions being in
consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with
the same.
20. We have already reproduced the relevant clause of the
educational qualification published in the advertisement and the
relevant Recruitment Rules. Reading Sub-clause 2 of Clause 7 of
the advertisement, we are of the considered view that 50% posts
were specifically advertised for the candidates who had 90 days
experience as Seasonal Spraying Field Workers. In addition
thereto, the second requirement for them was to complete 12
20 WP-12842-24.odt
months primary course in three attempts. If such candidates are
not available then the candidates who possesses secondary
certificate with Science subject would be selected. The intent of
the advertisement was clear that firstly the candidates who
possesses the qualification as mentioned in the first part of Clause
(2) could be selected. Reading this section with the Recruitment
Rules of 19 March 2003, it cannot be said that it is in violation of
the Recruitment Rules. On the contrary, the rules provide that
preference should be given to those candidates who possess 90
days experience as seasonal spraying workers. The selection
quota for such candidates and other open candidates was 50:40.
We find substance in the submission of the learned A.G.P. that
clause (I) was specifically for the aspirants who possess the HSC
certificate with Science subject and 40% seats were reserved for
them. A sub-clause was inserted in clause (2), if the candidates
from 50% quota are not available, the candidates possessing HSC
with Science subject will be given appointment. Therefore,
naturally the common merit list was to be prepared. Reading
these clauses (1) and (2) together, one could understand that first
meritorious students from the categories having HSC certificate
with Science subject would be selected as per the merit and if any
candidates vacancies remained vacant from clause (2), such
candidates would be considered. So, by way of issuing impugned
the communication dated 15.10.2024, it cannot be said it would
21 WP-12842-24.odt
affect to the merit of the petitioners. This is the process of giving
preferential appointment to the aspirants who possess the
experience of 90 days and for them specifically 50% of the posts
i.e. 57 posts were kept reserved. We do not find that impugned
communication dated 15.10.2024 is affecting the rights of the
petitioners or intervenor.
21. We do not find substance in the petition. Hence, the writ
petition stands dismissed.
22. Pending intervention applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
23. No order as to costs.
24. Rule stands discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S. G. MEHARE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
25. After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel for
the petitioners seeks stay to the impugned order for six weeks as
the stay order was operating. He would submit that the
petitioners' hope to get the success. However, the learned A.G.P.
and the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the
request, saying that around 2600 posts are to be filled up
throughout the State. Only for four petitioners, such a large
number of aspirants cannot be deprived of the posting.
22 WP-12842-24.odt
26. We have discussed the issue and dismissed the writ petition.
The recruitment process is a time consuming process. The
petitioners are waiting for postings. The nature of the duties of the
persons selected pertains to be health. Therefore, we do not feel it
appropriate to accept the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioners to stay the impugned judgment and order passed
today.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S. G. MEHARE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
rrd
