Bombay High Court
Abhijeet Dyaneshwar Kalgunde vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:30767-DB
W.P. No.7915/2024
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7915 OF 2024
Abhijeet s/o Dyaneshwar Kalgunde,
Age 23 years, Occ. Private Service,
R/o Kolgaon, Shrigonda,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2) The Collector-cum-the Chairman of
District Selection Committee,
Ahmednagar - 414 003
3) The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar - 414 001
4) The Deputy Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
cum the Secretary,
District Selection Committee,
Grampanchayat Department,
Ahmednagar - 414 001
5) Tarachand Mukunda Chindhe,
Age 41 years, Occ. Nil,
At Post Galnimb, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar 413 710 ... RESPONDENTS
W.P. No.7915/2024
:: 2 ::
.......
Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate holding for
Mr. H.S. Bali & Sonal S. Bali, Advocates for petitioner
Mrs. P.J. Bharad, A.G.P. for R.No.1 & 2
Mr. A.D. Aghav, Advocate for R.No.3 & 4
Mr. A.N. Kakade, Advocate for R.No.5.
.......
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date of reserving judgment : 26th August, 2025
Date of pronouncing judgment : 11th November, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The respondent No.3 issued an advertisement,
No.1/2023 for recruitment to the various posts including the
post of Extension Officer (Statistical) on the establishment of
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. One of the posts of Extension
Officer was reserved for NT-C category. Both, the petitioner
and the respondent No.5 belong to the said category. Both of
them applied for the post. A written test was held on
8/10/2023. A select list (provisional) was published. The
petitioner was shown at Sr.No.3 therein. He secured 172
:: 3 ::
marks out of 200. The respondent No.5 secured 170 marks.
All the provisionally selected candidates were called for
documents verification. It appears that, the respondent No.5
made a complaint contending that candidates not complying
with the requisite educational qualification appeared for
documents verification.
3. The final select list was published on 24/7/2024,
wherein respondent No.5 was shown to have been selected.
The petitioner did Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) (Mechanical).
Mathematics/ Statistics was one of the subjects for B.E. The
respondent No.5 earned Bachelor's degree in Computer
Science and postgraduation therein as well. The reason for
not selecting the petitioner to the post was that he did not have
requisite educational qualification.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that, the (B.E.) (Mechanical) is an applied Science. It is no
less a degree in Science itself. The counterpart of respondent
No.3 recruited the candidates holding similar educational
qualification for the said post in the district of Gondia.
:: 4 ::
According to him, the recruiting authority i.e. respondent No.3
ought not to have solicited guidance from the MPSC and/or the
State of Maharashtra in General Administration Department
when he himself was of the view that the petitioner is qualified
for the post. According to him, the petitioner was a meritorious
candidate. The respondent No.5 ought not to have been given
a march over the petitioner's claim. He, therefore, urged for
allowing the Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 would, on
the other hand, submit that, B.Sc. and M.Sc. (Computer) is a
stream in Science faculty. Name of the petitioner figured in the
provisional select list. It was published prior to the verification
of documents. According to him, not a single candidate
exclusively holding a degree in Engineering had been
selected/ recruited for the post in State of Maharashtra. The
same suggests that the State of Maharashtra and the
recruiting authority as well do not recognize degree in
Engineering to be a graduation in Science stream. According
to him, in the districts of Raigad, Satara and Yavatmal as well,
candidates holding the (B.E.) (Mechanical) have not been
:: 5 ::
selected for the post. A communication dated 30/4/2024,
issued by the Deputy Secretary, Rural Development
Department was also adverted to.
According to the learned counsel, it is for the
recruiting authority to decide or to be satisfied as to whether
the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate is
sustainable or not. Judicial intervention in such matter is not to
be accepted. In support of his claim, he relied on the
judgments of the Apex Court in cases of (1) Maharashtra
Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade
etc. etc. (2019) 6 SCC 362, (2) Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Etc.etc. (2020) 4 SCC 86 and (3)
Union of India Vs. Uzair Imran & ors. (2023) SCC OnLine
SC 1308 to ultimately urge for dismissal of the petition.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced.
Perused the documents on record and the authorities cited.
The respondent No.3 issued the advertisement for
filling up various posts including the post of Extension Officer
:: 6 ::
(Statistical) on the establishment of Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar. The educational qualification for the said post
was as below :
अ. पदाचे नाव शैक्षणिक अर्हता व अनुभव
क्र.
18 विस्तार अधिकारी संविधिमान्य विद्यापीठाची विज्ञान, कृषी, वाणिज्य
(सांख्यिकी) किंवा वाङ्मय शाखेची अर्थशास्त्र किंवा गणित
अथवा सांख्यिकी विषयासह प्रथम अगर द्वितीय
वर्गातील पदवी धारण करीत असतील किंवा
ज्यांना नमुना सर्वेक्षण करण्याचा अनुभव असेल,
किंवा पदवी व अनुभव दोन्ही असतील असे
उमेदवार
परंतु, अशा विषयांपैकी एका विषयाची स्नातकोत्तर
पदवी धारण करणाऱ्या उमेदवारांना अधिक पसंती
देण्यात येईल
7. Four posts of Extension Officer (Statistical) were to
be filled up. One of the four posts was reserved for NT-C
category. Both, the petitioner and respondent No.5 belong to
said category. Both of them along with others applied for the
said post. A written test was held. Petitioner secured 172 out
of 200 marks. Respondent No.5 secured 170 marks.
Provisionally selected candidates were called for documents
verification. In the provisional select list, the petitioner was
shown at Sr.No.3. After the verification of the documents was
:: 7 ::
done, the respondent No.5 was selected for the post. It
appears that, the said respondent had given a written
complaint, alleging the candidates not satisfying with the
requisite qualification as given in the advertisement, were
called for documents verification.
8. The mark sheets placed on record by the petitioner
indicate that Engineering Mathematics were one of the
subjects of the Engineering (B.E.) Course cleared by the
petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner did graduation in
Mechanical Engineering. (B.E. (Mechanical) ). Whereas the
respondent No.5 has cleared B.Sc. (Computer Science) and
postgraduation therein as well. The respondent No.3 solicited
guidance from the MPSC and even the State of Maharashtra in
General Administration Department. Both the authorities
communicated him the degree in Engineering is quite different
than degree in Science. The respondent No.3, therefore, held
the petitioner to have not possessed the requisite qualification
to hold the post. The Selection Committee comprising of the
Collector, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar
and Deputy Chief Executive Officer (respondent No.3)
:: 8 ::
respectively declared the petitioner to be not eligible for the
said post. For better appreciation, the reason given by the
Selection Committee is reproduced in verbatim.
अ. उमेदवाराचे नाव बैठक क्रमांक अपात्र असण्याचे कारण शेरा
क्र.
१ अभिजीत ३५२०००२३५७ मा. उप सचिव, ग्रामविकास व
ज्ञानेश्वर कालगुंडे पंचायत राज विभाग, महाराष्ट्र शासन
पात्र क्र. संकीर्ण -३१२४/प्र.क्र.
५०/ आस्था ८ दि.
३०/०४/२०२४ नुसार बी. ई.
(मेकॅनिकल्स) हा शैक्षणिक
अभ्यासक्रम आणि विज्ञान शाखेची
पदवी हे दोन अभ्यासक्रम पूर्ण तः
वेगवेगळे आहेत. बी. ई.
(मेकॅनिकल्स) या पदवीत
उपयोजित शास्त्र (अप्लाईड
सायन्स) आणि विज्ञान शाखेमध्ये
मूळ शास्त्र (बेसिक सायन्स) असते.
त्यामुळे हे दोन्ही अभ्यासक्रम
वेगवेगळे आहेत व ते समकक्ष नाहीत
त्यामुळे अपात्र.
9. The respondent No.3, in his communication made
to the State of Maharashtra in General Administration
Department, had expressed his view that the petitioner has
requisite educational qualification for appointment to the said
post. We are conscious of the observations made by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid three decisions relied on by the
respondent No.5. A gist of the observations of the Apex Court
is that :-
:: 9 ::
The equivalence of qualification as claimed by
a candidate is a matter of scrutiny by the
recruiting agency/ employer. It is the
recruiting agency which has to be satisfied as
to whether the claim of equivalence of
qualification by a candidate is sustainable or
not. The purpose and object of qualification is
fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective
of recruiting the best candidates for the job. It
is the recruiting agency who is under
obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a
candidate as to whether a candidate is
eligible and entitled to participate in the
selection. More so when the advertisement
clearly contemplates that certificate
concerning the qualification shall be
scrutinised, it was the duty and obligation of
the recruiting agency to scrutinise the
qualification to find out the eligibility of the
candidates.
The essential qualifications for appointment to
a post are for the employer to decide. The
employer may prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications, including any grant of
preference. It is the employer who is best
suited to decide the requirements a candidate
must possess according to the needs of the
employer and the nature of work. The Court
cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility,
much less can it delve into the issue with
regard to desirable qualifications being on a
par with the essential eligibility by an
interpretive re-writing of the advertisement.
Questions of equivalence will also fall outside
the domain of judicial review.
10. It is reiterated that, educational qualification for the
:: 10 ::
post of Extension Officer (Statistical) was - degree in Science
or Agriculture or Commerce or Arts stream with subjects -
Economics or Mathematics or Statistical. Preference to a
postgraduate in any of those streams was to be given. A short
question, therefore, falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is
as to whether the petitioner's degree in Engineering is a
degree in Science stream. Admittedly, the petitioner had
Engineering Mathematics as one of the subjects for his
Engineering academics. It needs no mention that, post passing
of S.S.C. examination, candidates prefer either Science,
Commerce or Arts stream. One of those three streams is
preferred, then on passing of H.S.C. examination, a candidate
from Science stream may go for either Medical or Engineering
Science. No candidate who did H.S.C. either from Commerce
or Arts stream is permitted to switch over to Science stream. It
is, however, permissible for a candidate clearing H.S.C. from
Science stream to switch over either to Commerce or Arts
stream for further studies of First Year B.Com. and onwards or
B.A. After passing of H.S.C. examination in Science stream,
who were better placed in securing marks prefer to go for
either M.B.B.S. or Engineering. Needless to mention,
:: 11 ::
Bachelor of Engineering is an applied Science. A Bachelor of
Engineering (B.E.) is considered a Science related degree
because, it applies Scientific Mathematical principles to solve
practical problems, making it a type of applied science. While
a pure science degree (like a Bachelor of Science or B.Sc.)
focuses more on the theoretical and fundamental; principles of
science, an engineering degree emphasizes hands on
application and technology. Both are foundational in their own
way, but engineering is about using science for practical
purpose. As per the advertisement, even a degree in Arts
stream i.e. B.A. with Mathematics or Statistics is a requisite
qualification, we fail to understand why not a degree in
Engineering (B.E. Mechanical) with Mathematics or Statistics
is one of the subjects. In our view, B.E. is necessarily a
graduation in Science stream. The petitioner's educational
qualification gets covered by the clause as to requisite
qualification in the advertisement.
11. Respondent No.5 also did not earn degree in
Science stream so to say because, his specialization is in
Computer Science. We are not much concerned therewith
:: 12 ::
since we have to find whether the petitioner holds the requisite
educational qualification. The clause in the advertisement
regarding educational qualification is as plain as it is. In our
view, degree in Engineering (B.E.) is a degree in Engineering
Science and when the advertisement does not spell out about
the subjects wherein a candidate should have earned a degree
of Science stream is concerned, we found the petitioner to
have requisite qualification (as has been required in terms of
the advertisement). If we rely on the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on the strength of the
authorities relied on by him, judicial review would outrightly be
closed in a case like present one. If the recruiting authority/
employer concerned goes wrong, judicial review has to be
resorted to, to set the wrong right.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Petition deserves
to be allowed. The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D), which read thus :
(B) By issuing writ of certiorari or in the like nature,
quash and set aside the impugned Final Selection
List published on 24/07/2024 (Exhibit "H").
:: 13 ::
(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the
qualification of the petitioner be eligible for the post
of Extension Officer (Statistical) as per the
advertisement 01/2023.
(D) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus thereby directing the respondents to
consider the candidature of the petitioner for the
post of Extension Officer (Statistical).
Rule made absolute accordingly.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
FMPathan/-
