Bombay High Court
The State Maharashtra Through ... vs Amit Angad Pathak on 7 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:43101-DB 901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
Rekha Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12382 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 31867 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12382 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department, ...Petitioner
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Versus
1. Pralhad Shankar Rode
Occupation - Service,
Flat No. 301, Bldg. No. 23,
Plot No. 13, Neel Sidni Prime CHS,
Sector 18, New Panvel (E).
2. Prasad R. Shinde
Flat No. 6, Gharkul CHS,
Sector 8, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai.
3. Sushila D. Pawar
A/7, Sanjeevan Govt. Quarters,
Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Road,
Naigaon, Mumbai.
4. Ajunkya Vasant Bagade
B-304, Hubtown Sustone,
Shastri Nagar, Bandra (E),
5. Amol Ankush Kanase,
B-1202, Sunrise Charkop CHS,
Sector-8, Charkop, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai.
REKHA
PRAKASH
PATIL
Digitally signed by
REKHA PRAKASH
PATIL
Date: 2025.10.07 Page 1 of 21
19:10:30 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2025 22:04:31 :::
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
6. Mohinudding B. Tahsildar,
D-1903, Exotica, Casa Rio Gold,
Palava City, Dombivali (E),
7. Shrikrishna B. Pawar,
Y-6/96, Government Colony,
Bandra (E), Mumbai.
8. Tusha V. Mahajan,
Flat No. 203, B-wing, Tilaknagar,
Manyata CHS, Tilaknagar,
Chember (W), Mumbai.
9. Satish Shival Bharitya,
Flat No. 20, Darshana,
Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai.
10.Subrao N. Shinde
A-102, Ishwar CHS, Plot No.2,
Sector 50, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.
11.Anirudha Jewlikar,
Y2/24, Government Colony,
Bandra (E), Mumbai.
12.Priyanka R. Chhapwale,
14, Priti Apt. Veer Desai Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
13.Vidya R. Hampayya,
Pratikshanagar, Sion, Mumbai.
14.Mahesh Ashokrao Varudkar,
Tushal-1001, A-Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai.
15.Randhir Suryawanshi,
Kaveri Building, Govt. Quarters,
Worli, Mumbai.
Page 2 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2025 22:04:31 :::
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
16.Ambadas Chandanshive,
Y5/74, Government Colony,
Bandra (E), Mumbai.
17.Amol S. Mutyal,
Government Quarters,
Darshan Building, Worli,
Mumbai.
18.Shrikant C. Andge,
Y-4/58, Y colony, Government Colony,
Bandra (E), Mumbai.
19.Praful Thakur,
Y-2/27, Government Quarters,
Bandra (E), Mumbai.
20.Santosh B. Karad,
Y-10/136, Government Colony,
Bandra (E), Mumbai.
21.Vijay K. Powar,
107, Hind Paradise, ...Respondents
Tarabai Park, Kolhapur.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12501 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department, ...Petitioner
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Versus
1. Amit Angad Pathak,
Age- 38 yrs., Occupation - Service,
D-331, 3rd Floor, New Building,
GST Bhavan, Pune.
2. Dr. Nilesh Vishwanath Sangale,
Age-40 Yrs., Occupation- Service,
State Excise, Fort, Mumbai.
Page 3 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2025 22:04:31 :::
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
3. Smt. Sangharatna Murlidhar Khillare
Age-44 Yrs., Occupation-Service,
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
Navi Mumbai, Thane.
4. Maheshkumar Shivaji Karande,
Age-45 Yrs., Occupation-Service,
Collector Office, Court Naka, Thane.
5. Santosh Uddhav Bhosale,
Age-44 Yrs., Occupation-Service,
301/302, Sukhsagar Apartment,
Kalyan Naka, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane.
...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12502 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Aniket Arun Manorkar,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Service,
Address: F 1002, Green World CHS,
Opp. Digha Station, Thane-Belapur Road,
Digha, Navi Mumbai, Mob: 8087589051,
Email id: [email protected]
2. Prashant Dattatray Rasal,
Age-51 years, Occu: Service,
Address: At Post Panchgani,
Tal. Mahabaleswhar, Dist: Satara,
Maharashtra: 421805, Mob: 9967527926
Email id: [email protected].
3. Vipin Suresh Paliwal,
Age 44 years, Occu: Service,
Address: Sneh Nagar, Wadgao Ward,
Chandrapur, Maharashtra - 442404,
Page 4 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2025 22:04:31 :::
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
Mobile: 9405975676,
Email id: [email protected]
4. Nitin Rajaram Kapadnis,
Age: 44 years, Occu. Service,
Address: Maay Bungalow, Shamaji Nagar,
Tal Baglan, Dist. Nashik,
Maharashtra - 423301.
Mob : 9923014353
Email id: [email protected]
Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General, a/w Smt. Pooja Patil, AGP,
for the Petitioner-State.
Mr. Ravi Shetty, Senior Advocate, i/b Sachin A. Ambulkar, for the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 10.
Mr. Sandeep Dere, i/b Arati Patil, for the Respondent Nos. 11
to 15.
Ms. Sonali Pawar, for the Respondent Nos. 16 to 19.
Mr. Laxman Deshmukh, for the Respondent Nos. 20 to 21.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 25th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON: 7th OCTOBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final
hearing and disposal.
2. These three Writ Petitions, preferred by the State of
Maharashtra, are directed against the common Judgment and
Order dated 5th September, 2025, passed by the learned
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
"Tribunal") disposing of as many as three original applications
being Original Applications Nos. 951 of 2025, 957 of 2025 and 953
of 2025, partly allowing the Original Applications by declaring that
part of Clause No. 3 of the G. R. dated 27 th April, 2025 was
violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and
hence, the same was struck down. The controversy involved in
these proceedings pertain to the procedure adopted by State
Government under the impugned Government Resolution ("G.R.")
dated 27th April, 2025, for preparing the list of candidates from the
Non- State Category Service (Non SCS) category of Officers for
recruitment in the Indian Administrative Service ("IAS") Cadre.
The factual back drop of these cases, as apparent from the
materials placed before us, are briefly narrated here-in-below.
3. The Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as " the Rules of 1954") framed in exercise
of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the All -
India Services Act,1951 envisages three different methods for
recruitment to the IAS Cadre viz.-:
i) by a competitive examination;
ii) by promotion of a (substantive) member of a State Civil
service; and
iii) by selection, in special cases, from among persons, who
hold in a substantive capacity gazetted posts in connection
with the affairs of a State and who are not members of a
State Civil Service.
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
In this case, we are concerned only with the third category of
Officers i.e. those who are not members of the State Civil Service
("SCS").
4. Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1954 lays down that recruitment
to the IAS Cadre will be by promotion or selection from amongst
the members of the SCS. As per the Rule 8(2), an Officer, who is
not a member of the SCS (NON-SCS) category can also be
considered in special circumstances. Rule 8(2) of the Rules of
1954 is reproduced herein below for ready reference;
"8. Recruitment by promotion or selection for
appointment to State and Joint Cadre:-
(1) ......
(2) The Central Government may, in special
circumstances and on the recommendation of the State
Government concerned and in consultation with the
Commission and in accordance with such regulations as
the Central Government may, after consultation with the
State Government and the Commission, from time to
time, make, recruit to the Service any person of
outstanding ability and merit serving in connection with
the affairs of the State who is not a member of the State
Civil Service of that State [but who holds a gazetted
post in a substantive capacity]."
5. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the All
India Services Act, 1951 and in pursuance to sub- Rule 2 of Rule 8
of the Rules of 1954, the Central Government has framed the
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection)
Regulations, 1997 ( hereinafter referred to as " the Regulations of
1997"). Regulation No. 4 prescribes the selection criteria and
eligibility condition for consideration of Non-SCS category Officers
for recruitment in the IAS Cadre. Regulation No.4 is reproduced
herein below for ready reference :-
" 4. State Government to send proposals for
consideration of the Committee.
(1)The State Government shall consider the case of a
person not belonging to the State Civil Service but
serving in connection with the affairs of the State who,-
(i) is of outstanding merit and ability; and
(ii) holds a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity; and
(iii)has completed not less than 8 years of continuous
service under the State Government on the first day of
January of the year in which his case is being
considered in any post which has been declared
equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State
Civil Service and propose the person for consideration
of the Committee. The number of persons proposed for
consideration of the Committee shall not exceed five
times the number of vacancies proposed to be filled
during the year :
Provided that the State Government shall not
consider the case of a person who has attained the age
of 54 years on the first day of January of the year in
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
which the decision is taken to propose the names for
the consideration of the Committee :
Provided also that the State Government shall not
consider the case of a person who, having been
included in an earlier select list, has not been
appointed by the Central Government in accordance
with the provisions of Regulation 9 of these
Regulations."
6. As per Regulation 4, subject to the eligibility conditions
prescribed there-in, the State Government is required to send
proposal for consideration of the Committee constituted under
regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulation 1955. The candidature of all eligible
Officers are to be assessed on the criteria of out standing merit
and ability. However, as per regulation 4, the number of persons
proposed for consideration by the Committee shall not exceed five
times the number of vacancies proposed to be filled during the
year.
7. The Regulations of 1997 clearly provide that the selection of
the candidates for Non-SCS category must be on the criteria of out-
standing merit and ability. The Regulations, however, do not
prescribe the parameters for assessing the "merit and ability" of the
candidate. As such, the State Government had issue (General
Resolution (G.R) dated 7th September, 2011 prescribing the
parameters for evaluating out-standing merit and ability of the
eligible Officers. The G.R. dated 07.09.2011 had clearly included
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
length of service in a Group-A post as one of the bench
mark/criteria for evaluation. G.R. dated 07.09.2011 was replaced
by G.R. dated 8th February, 2016 prescribing bench mark criteria
for evaluation which included 15 marks for seniority. On 4 th
February, 2017, another G.R. was issued, partially modifying the
weightage, which was followed by the G.R. dated 19 th April, 2017
and thereafter, by the G. R. dated 20 th January, 2018. In this
manner, the State Government has from time to time issued a
number of G.Rs. prescribing the bench mark/parameters for
selecting the candidates on the touchstone of "outstanding merit
and ability".
8. The G.R. dated 24th July, 2025 also lays down the similar
bench mark/ parameters of selection/ evaluation of the
candidature of all eligible candidates of the non SCS category.
According to Clause 3 of G.R. dated 24 th July,2025 assessment of
the candidature of eligible Officers will be made on a total score
of 100 marks by combining the marks of written examination (60
marks), marks of service period (20 marks) and confidential report
(20 marks). Sub clauses (i) to (vi) of Clause 3 of the G. R. dated
24th July, 2025, would be relevant for the purpose of this case.
Therefore, the same is being reproduced here-in herein below for
ready reference :-
" 3. After the proposals are received by the General
Administration Department from the Administrative
Departments of Mantralaya as per the procedure
mentioned in the above paragraph 2, the following
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
permanent procedure is being finalized for recommending
eligible officers to the Union Public Service Commission in
a ratio of 1:5 (5 officers for I vacant post):
i) A written examination of 60 marks shall be
organized for the concerned eligible officers based
on the proposals received by the General
Administration Department from the Ministerial
Administrative Departments.
ii) The format of the said written examination shall
be Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ (Objective)].
The negative marking system shall be applicable for
incorrect answers.
iii) The syllabus for the examination shall be as per
the attached Annexure-A.
iv) The examination fee prescribed by the
Government from time to time shall be charged for
the written examination.
v) The number of officers to be shortlisted from the
written examination will be 3 times the number of
officers (1:5) to be recommended to the Union
Public Service Commission for selection to the
Indian Administrative Service. While selecting the
officers at the 3-times ratio, all officers who have
scored marks equal to the mark of the last selected
officer shall be considered eligible for the next stage
of evaluation.
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
vi) All officers who qualify in the above written
examination shall be evaluated for a total of 100
marks by combining the marks of the written
examination (60 marks), marks for the service
period (20 marks), and confidential reports (20
marks). Based on this evaluation, the names of the
first 1:5 officers (05 officers for 01 vacant post) in
order of merit shall be finally recommended to the
Union Public Service Commission."
9. Clause 3(vii) provides a table indicating the manner in
which 20 marks for the service period shall be divided with
reference to the total service period (in complete years). The said
table makes it apparent that the 20 marks for service period would
be relatable to the tenure of service of the officer(s). In other
words, the Officers completing more years of service would be
scoring more marks due to this criteria.
10. The Original Applicants (Private Respondents here-in) do
not have any objection to the criteria of written examination (60
marks) and confidential report (20 marks). Their objection is only
on account of the weightage of 20 marks for the service period.
According to the Original Applicants, by introducing the criteria
(20 marks) for service period the State has given weightage to
seniority which is not a criteria envisaged by the Rules or the
Regulations framed thereunder. According to the Original
Applicants, by introducing seniority of the officers as a parameter
for shortlisting the eligible officers, the State has altered the
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
provisions of the Rules of 1954 and Regulations of 1997, both of
which, do not envisage seniority as a criteria of selection of the
eligible officers belonging to the non-SCS category thus diluting
the merit criteria to the detriment of the interest of Officers with
out- standing merit and ability. Therefore, clause 3 in the G. R.
dated 24th July, 2025, was violative of fundamental rights of the
applicants guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the
Constitution of India.
11. The stand of the State before the learned Tribunal was to
the effect that the length of service of the eligible officers has been
treated as an essential component so as to ascertain their ability,
which is a relevant criterion prescribed by the Regulations of 1997.
Since, such criteria has a reasonable nexus with the object sought
to be achieved, hence, the same cannot be termed as illegal.
12. After hearing the submissions of both the sides, the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed all the Original Applications by
declaring Clause 3 of the impugned G.R. dated 27 th April, 2025, as
illegal by holding that the State did not have the authority or
jurisdiction to supersede the Statutory Rules by issuing
administrative instructions. By relying on the decision of the
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sant Ram Sharma vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1910, the learned Tribunal has
further held that the State can merely supplement the Rules so as
to fill up the gaps but cannot supplant the same. According to the
learned Tribunal, by prescribing 20% weightage for
seniority/tenure of the Officers, the State has attempted to
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
supplant the Recruitment of the Rules of 1954 and the Regulations
of 1997. The learned Tribunal was also of the view that by taking
the seniority factor into account, the State has created a class
within the class, thus offending of the principles of equality
enshrined under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
13. Assailing the impugned Judgment and Order dated 5th
September, 2025, Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, learned Advocate General
appearing for the State of Maharashtra i.e. the Writ Petitioners,
has argued that although the Regulations of 1997 prescribes the
criteria for selection of officers, which is "outstanding merit and
ability" yet, neither the Rules of 1954 nor the Regulations 1997 lay
down the parameters for shortlisting the eligible candidates.
Contending that, the State Government had initially issued a G.R.
way back on 7th September, 2011 introducing the parameters for
evaluating/assessing "outstanding merit and ability" of the
candidates based on length of service, which has been followed till
date, the learned AG has argued that the same methodology for
short-listing of candidates is being followed over the years which is
now sought to be up-set at the instance of the Respondents.
According to Dr. Saraf, the Clause 3 in the G.R. does not introduce
a new criteria but merely prescribes a methodology which is
consistent with the past practice, thus prescribing a more objective
and transparent criteria so as to assess the candidature of the
eligible candidates.
14. By referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of B. Amrutha Lakshmi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2013)
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
16 SCC 440, Dr. Saraf has further argued that prescribing
parameters for assessing "outstanding merit and ability" of the
candidates would lie within the exclusive domain of the State
Government. Therefore, unless such criteria is found to be
arbitrary, irrational or non- transparent, the same cannot be struck
down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution of India. To sum up his argument, Dr. Saraf, has
submitted that the case of the Original Applicants/Private
Respondents is purely a hypothetical in as much as, at this point of
time, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty as to which of
the Original Applicants would eventually be included and which of
them will be excluded from the final list due to the operation of
the above selection criteria.
15. Resisting the above arguments made on behalf of the State,
Mr. Ravi Shetty, learned Senior Counsel representing the Original
Applicants, has submitted that seniority is not a criteria envisaged
by the Rules for assessing the candidature of non-SCS category
candidates and, therefore, by issuing the G.R. which is nothing but
Executive Instruction, it was not permissible for the State to
introduce a new criteria, which is incompatible with the Rules as
well as the Regulations framed by the Central Government.
According to Mr. Shetty, the impugned Clause in the G.R. being
nothing else but a seniority criteria, the same has no role in
assessing the merit and ability of the candidates. Mr. Shetty has,
therefore, argued that if the 20% weightage for length of service is
given effect to then in that event many officers in the NON-SCS
cadre having "outstanding merit" would be left out from the
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
purview of selection, in a manner not intended either by the Rules
of 1954 or the Regulations of 1997. In support of his above
arguments, Mr. Shetty has relied upon the following decisions of
the Supreme Court:-
1. State of Kerala & Anr. vs. N. M. Thomas & Ors. (1976) 2
Supreme Court Cases 310.
2. Palure Bhaskar Rao & Ors. vs. P. Ramaseshaiah & Ors.
(2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 783.
3. B. Amrutha Lakshmi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2013)
16 Supreme Court Cases 440.
4.Parmeshwar Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 1
Supreme Court Cases 145 : 2002 Supreme Court Cases ( L &
S ) 112 : 2001 SCC, Online SC 1290.
16. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and
have also gone through materials on record. The core controversy
involved in these Writ Petitions, in our view, lies in narrow
compass. , The core question arising for consideration of this Court
in the present proceeding is as to whether by assigning 20%
weightage to the service period, whether the State has introduced
a selection criteria which is in conflict with the provisions of the
Rules of 1954 or the Regulations of 1997 or was violative of
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India . In order to
answer the said question, it would be apposite to note here-in that
as per the regulations the consideration of the candidates
belonging to the Non-SCS category is by selection on the
touchstone of out-standing merit and ability. However, neither the
Rules of 1954 nor the Regulations of 1997 lay down the
parameters based on which, the assessment of candidatures of the
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
eligible candidates, on the touchstone of "outstanding merit" and
"ability" is to be determined.
17. There is no wrangle at the bar that eight (8) years of service
is the minimum eligibility criteria for an officers of this category is
to be considered. Therefore, all such officers who have completed
eight years of continuous service and fulfill the other requirements
of the Regulation 4 would come within the zone of consideration.
However, the aforesaid criteria is too broad based for shortlisting
candidates in a situation where a large number of Officers could
come within the zone of consideration for a limited number of
vacancies. We are informed that there are only three vacancies
available to the Non-SCS category Officers for this year. In these
circumstances some transparent and objective criteria of evaluation
would have to be employed by the State for short listing of eligible
candidates by maintaining ratio prescribed by the
Regulations(1:5).
18. The expression "ability" is not defined in the Rules or the
Regulations. However, as per Blacks Law Dictionary (Eight Edition)
ability means capacity to perform an act or service. Going by the
dictionary meaning, the expression "ability", in the context of the
Rules and the Regulations, would undoubtedly relate to the
capacity of an Officer to undertake certain responsibilities in
discharge of his official duties. Therefore, it is logical that with
experience, the capacity of an officer to perform his duties more
efficiently is likely to increase, thus adding to his ability. As such, it
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
cannot be denied that experience in the job can form an essential
component for assessing the ability of the officer. If that be so, we
are of the opinion that by assigning weightage to the period of
service rendered by the Officer, the State has merely made an
attempt to identify more experienced officers having better ability
to discharge their duties. The issue is not of seniority but more
experience adding to the ability of the Officer. Viewed from that
perspective, it cannot be said that the length/ period of service of
an officer has no nexus with the ability of such officer.
19. As a matter of fact, in paragraph No. 15 of the impugned
judgement, the learned Tribunal has also observed that the
contention of the Government that the tenure of a Government
Officer can be one of the factors to be considered while assessing
his merit and ability was logical. Having held as above, the
impugned clause in the G.R. dated 24th July, 2025, has been struck
down on the ground that the same was in conflict with the
provisions of the Rules of 1954 as well as the Regulations of 1997
and also violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of
India. We are, however, unable to agree with such observation and
conclusion of the learned Tribunal, for the following reasons-
(A) Firstly, as noted above, neither the Rules of 1954 nor the
Regulations of 1997 prescribe any methodology for assessing the
"merit" and "ability" of the officers. If the that be so, prescribing a
methodology based on pre-determined and transparent evaluation
criteria by issuing the G.R., in our opinion, cannot even remotely
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
be termed as an Act on the part of the State to supplant the Rules
or Regulations framed by the Central Government.
(B) Secondly, the parameter for assessing the merit and suitability
of non-SCS category officers with length of service as a component
for the purpose of recruitment on Non-SCS category Officers to the
IAS cadre was introduced in the year 2011 and the said process
has been continued till date, albeit with some modifications, by
issuing subsequent GRs. In the GR dated 07.09.2011 also length of
service was a criteria which was continued by the subsequent GRs.
As such, it is evident that similar bench mark and methodology for
evaluation of merit and ability of the Non-SCS Officers have been
in place since past several years. However, the Original Applicants
had not challenged any of those earlier GRs including the initial
G.R. dated 07.09.2011. There is no valid explanation for not doing
so. Therefore, the plea raised by the Original Applicant, in our
view, would be hit by the principles of waiver, estoppel and
acquiescence.
(C) Thirdly, after the decision in the case of B.Amrutha Lakshmi
(supra) rendered in the context of the All-India Service Act 1951
and the Rules of 1954, law is well settled that it would be open for
the State Government to lay down Rules prescribing criteria for
assessing out- standing merit and ability of the Officers. There is
nothing in the Rules or the Regulations that prohibits the State
from prescribing any criteria/ bench mark for evaluation of merit
and ability of the Officers nor do we find that clause 3 of the GR
dated 24th July ,2025 is in any manner, in conflict with any of the
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
provisions of the Rules or the Regulations. In such view of the
matter, as long as the evaluation criteria followed by the State is
transparent and has a reasonable nexus with the purpose sought to
be achieved, the same cannot be struck down on the ground that
such criteria has the effect of supplanting the Rules.
(D) Fourthly, it is not the case of the Original Applicants that by
employing the impugned evaluation criteria any eligible officer has
been ousted from the zone of consideration or that the criteria
have not been applied uniformly. It is also not clear at this stage as
to which of the Original Applicants would be included or excluded
from the final list to be prepared by the State Government by
applying the prescribed criteria and maintain the ratio of 1:5.
Therefore, the question of the impugned GR offending Articles 14
and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India, in our considered opinion,
would also not arise in these cases. A selection criterion introduced
by the State cannot be struck down by the Court merely because
application of the same works to the dis-advantage to one set of
candidates. As long as the criteria is applied uniformly and the
same does not result in ousting of any eligible candidate from the
zone of consideration, the question of violating Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution would not arise.
20. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 5th September, 2025 of the learned Tribunal is
found to be unsustainable in law. The same is accordingly set
aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand allowed.
901-WP-12382-2025-FINAL.DOC
21. Consequently, the three Original Applications filed by the
respondents/ original applicants stand dismissed.
22. The parties to bear their own costs.
( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
