Bombay High Court
Shailesh Madhukar Chaware And Others vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary Home ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:10966-DB
1 wp4360.20251..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4360 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4361 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 4360 OF 2025
1. Ashish S/o. Yashwant Harde,
Aged about 29 Years, Occupation- Service,
R/o. Grampanchayat Parisar,
Nalgaon, Bhandara, Maharashtra 441910.
2. Vidyatai Digambar Thatkar,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation- Service,
R/o. Nehru Ward, Khatkheda, Bhandara,
Sawarla, Maharashtra- 441910.
3. Sheshkannya Manish Selokar,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation Service,
R/o. Nehru Ward, Main Road, Walani,
Bhandara, Maharashtra-441910.
4. Komal W/o. Vishal Moharkar
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation- Service,
R/o. 33, Wadegaon, Wadegaon (Sindpuri)
Bhendala, Bhandara, Sawarla,
Maharashtra-441910.
5. Varsha Diwekar Panchbhai,
Aged about 33 years, Occupation Service,
R/o. Nehru Ward, Khairi Diwan,
Asgaon, Bhandara,
Maharashtra-441910.
6. Bhagyashree Vilas Yelmule,
Aged about 32 years. Occupation Service,
R/o. Nehru Ward, Sindapuri (Pauni),
Bhandara, Sawarla,
Belkhede, PS
2 wp4360.20251..doc
Maharashtra-441910
7. Shubham S/o. Pandurang Dehmukh,
Aged about 26 years, Occupation- Service,
R/o. Gandhi Ward, Shivnala (Walani),
Bhandara, Sawarla,
Maharashtra-441910.
8. Praful S/o. Nathhu Shiwankar,
Aged about 31 years, Occupation- Service,
R/o. Near Hanuman Mandir,
Subhash Ward, Lawadi, Bhandara,
Maharashtra-441910.
9. Shubham S/o. Ashok Khobragade,
Aged about 29 years, Occupation- Service,
R/o. Datt Mandir Parisar, Ambedkar Ward,
Ruyal (Pauni), Bhandara,
Maharashtra-441910.
10. Anil S/o. Tukaram Nakhate,
Aged about 42 years, Occupation- Service,
R/०. Gandhi Ward, Mokhara, Palora,
Bhandara, Maharashtra-441908.
11. Surendra S/o. Sudhakar Bhendarkar,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation- Service,
R/o. Hanuman Mandir, Nehru Ward, Lonhara,
Bhandara, Maharashtra-441908.
12. Madhuri Someshwar Mankar,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation Service,
R/o. Gandhi Ward, Isapur, Visapur,
Bhandara, Maharashtra- 441910.
13. Prabhakar S/o. Rajendra Ghyar,
Aged about 25 years, Occupation Service,
R/o. Kotalpar, PO Amgaon, Tahsil Paoni,
Bhandara, Maharashtra-441910.
Belkhede, PS
3 wp4360.20251..doc
14. Shilpa Tarachand Kore,
Aged about 29 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o. Gandhi Ward, Mohari, Asgzon.
Bhandara, Maharashtra-441910
15. Balu S/o. Gajanan Mandape.
Aged about 40 years, Occupation Service,
Ro Waigaon, Bhuyar (Pauni)
Bhandara, Maharashtra 441910
16. Mangala Zunzar Rangari,
Aged about 39 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Grampanchayat Parisar Singori,
Wahi (Pauni). Bhandara,
Maharashtra-441910.
17. Suchita Moreshwar Motghare,
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation- Service,
R/o. Grampanchayat Parisar Nimagaon
(Pauni), Bhandara,
Maharashtra-441910. ......PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Home Ministry,
9th Floor, New Administrative Building,
Opp Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032
2. The Collector, Bhandara,
MSEB Colony, Bhandara,
Maharashtra 441904
3. Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sub Division Officer,
Opposite Collector Office, Bhandara.
4. Sharda W/o. Ganesh Budhe,
Aged about 36 years, Occ: Household,
Belkhede, PS
4 wp4360.20251..doc
R/o. Shahapur,
Tah and Dist. Bhandara.
5. Lata W/o. Surendra Padole,
Aged about 37 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Wadad,
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
6. Ankush S/o. Rushi Panchbuddhe,
Aged about 26 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Tawepur post, Mohdura,
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
7. Varsha W/o. Sanjat Chandrkar,
Aged about 27 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Pahela, Mohdura.
Tah and Dist. Bhandara.
8. Gaurishankar S/o. Amber Morkure,
Aged about 34 years, Occ
R/o. Agriculturist, Kothurna,
Tah and Dist. Bhandara
9. Sharda W/o. Ankush Wanjari,
Aged about 40 years, Occ Service,
R/o. Pevatha, Tah and Dist. Bhandara.
10. Prafulla S/o. Pundalik Ghyar,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Kotalpar, Post Amgaon,
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara
11. Preeti W/o. Amit Bhambore,
Aged about 35 years, Occ Household,
R/o. Singori (Wahi)
Post Paoni, Dist. Bhandara
12. Vishnu S/o. Subhash Deshmukh,
Aged about 25 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Shivnala (Walni),
Tah. Paoni and Dist. Bhandara.
Belkhede, PS
5 wp4360.20251..doc
13. Roshna w/o Pradeep Mohurle,
Aged about 31 yrs, Occ. Household,
R/o Kalewada Post Nerla,
Tah. Paoni and Dist. Bhandara .....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4361 OF 2025
1. Shailesh Madhukar Chaware,
Aged about 36 years, R/o Ambadi,
Post Bhavad, Tahsil Pauni,
District Bhandara
2. Sau. Priya Kuldip Urade,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o Adyal, Pauni, District Bhandara.
3. Nitin Nanaji Bhure,
Aged about 31 years,
R/o Akot, Tahsil Bhandara. Pauni,
District Bhandara
4. Sau. Bhavna Pradip Bhoyor.
Aged 30 years, R/o Kalewada,
Post Nerla, Tahsil Pauni,
District Bhandara.
5. Sau. Pratima Gulab Netam,
Aged about 33, R/o Keslapuri,
Post Pauni, Tahsil Pauni,
District Bhandara
6. Subodh Prakash Barsagade,
Aged about 28 years, R/o Telpendhari,
Post Pauni, Tahsil Pauni,
District Bhandara.
7. Prashant Kodandrao Shende,
Aged about 30 years, R/o Pannashi,
Post Minsi, Tahsil Pauni,
District Bhandara.
Belkhede, PS
6 wp4360.20251..doc
8. Sau. Maya Gopal Maske,
Aged about 32 years, R/o Fanoli,
Post Pimpalgaon, Tahsil Pauni,
District Bhandara.
9. Sau. Kunda Deorno Waghade,
Aged about 30 years, R/o Amgaon (Dighori),
Tahsil District Bhandara.
10. Sau. Priti Vijay Tijre,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Kawadsi, Tahsil Post Shahapur,
District Bhandara.
11. Sau. Supriya Nilesh Ramteke,
Aged about 35 years, R/o Kondhi,
Post Jawaharnagar,
Tahsil & District Bhandara.
12. Sau. Savita Yogesh Halmare,
Aged Major, R/o Khurshipar,
Tahsil & District Bhandara.
13. Sau. Nita Sharad Bhandarkar,
Aged about 42 years, R/o Ganeshpur,
Tahsil & District Bhandara.
14. Sau. Priti Vishnu Dahiwale,
Aged about 31 years,
R/o Golewadi, Post Minsi, District Bhandara
15. Shailesh Bhagra
Aged about 30 yours/Chicholi,
Post Pipri, Tat District Bhandara
16. Shrikant Shrikrushna Mate,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o Tavepar,
Tahsil & District Bhandara.
Belkhede, PS
7 wp4360.20251..doc
17. Sau. Vibha Vilas Vaidya,
Aged about 31 years,
R/o Tekepar (Zabada),
Post Manegaon (Bazar),
Tahsil & District Bhandara.
18. Sau. Vaishali Mahtsh Dolas,
Aged about 32 years,
R/० Navegaon, Koka (Forest),
Tahsil & District Bhandara.
19. Sau. Bharti Dharmendra Chaudhari,
Aged about 26 years, R/o Paghora,
Post Pahela, Bhandara
20. Chandrabhan Kachru Hatwar.
Aged about 44 years, 2/0 Kewtha,
Post Pipri, Thail District Bhandara
21. Nepal Purushottam Dornie
Aged about 44 years,
R/0 Manegaon (Bazar),
Tahsil & District Bhandara
22. Gurudeo Vasanta Vairagade,
Aged about 31 years, R/० Mohadura,
Taheil & District Bhandara.
23. Sau. Sonali Nitin Marbate,
Aged about 32 years, R/Moudi,
Post Pahela, Tahsil Distt. Bhandara
24. Sau. Archana Hiralal Bhalavi,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Ravanwadi, Post Pahela,
Tahsil & District Bhandara.
25. Sau Priyanka Gulchang Dhulase,
Aged about 31 R/0 years. Wadad
Post Neria, (Rehabilitation),
Tahail & District Bhandara.
Belkhede, PS
8 wp4360.20251..doc
26. Sau. Nutan Kartik Maske,
Aged about 30 years, R/o Wakeshwar,
Post Pahela, Tahsil & District Bhandara
27. Sau. Ashvini Samil Humane,
Aged about 26 years, R/o Sarpewada,
Koka (Forest),
Tahsil & District Bhandara.
28. Varsha Jagdish Gotephode,
Aged Major, R/o Takli,
District: Bhandara.
29. Sheetal Anandrao Pise,
Aged Major, R/o Kothurna,
Taluka and District: Bhandara.
30. Nitesh Nandakishor Waghmare,
Aged: Major, R/० Sonuli,
Posti Varthi, Bhandara. ......PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Home Ministry,
9th Floor, Administrative Building, Opp.
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
2. The Collector, Bhandara,
MSEB Colony, Bhandara,
Maharashtra 441904.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sub Division Officer,
Opposite Collector Office, Bhandara.
4. Sharda W/o. Ganesh Budhe,
Aged about 36 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Shahapur, Tah and Dist. Bhandara.
Belkhede, PS
9 wp4360.20251..doc
5. Lata W/o. Surendra Padole,
Aged about 37 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Wadad, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
Maharashtra-441910.
6. Ankush S/o. Rushi Panchbuddhe,
Aged about 26 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Tawepur post, Mohdura,
Tah, and Dist. Bhandara.
7. Varsha W/o. Sanjat Chandrkar,
Aged about 27 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Pahela, Mohdura,
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
8. Gaurishankar S/o. Ambar Morkure,
Aged about 34 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Kothurna,
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
9. Sharda W/o. Ankush Wanjari,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Service, R/o. Pevatha,
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
10. Prafulla S/o. Pundalik Ghyar,
Aged about 29 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Kotalpar, Post Amgaon,
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
11. Preeti W/o. Amit Bhambore,
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Singori (Wahi) Post Paoni,
Dist. Bhandara.
12. Vishnu S/o. Subhash Deshmukh,
Aged about 26 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Shivnala (Walni),
Tah. Paoni and Dist. Bhandara.
13. Roshna W/o. Pradeep Mohrule,
Belkhede, PS
10 wp4360.20251..doc
Aged about 31 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Kalewada Post Nerla,
Tah Paoni and Dist. Bhandara.
14. Sau. Priya Kuldip Urade,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o. Adyal, Tahsil Pauni,
Dist. Bhandara.
15. Akash S/o. Anil Ramteke,
Aged about 26 years, R/o. Tekepar (Dodmazari),
Tahsil & Dist. Bhandara .....RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. S.S. Jachak, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.
Mr. S.Y. Deopujari, Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 13.
CORAM:- ANIL S. KILOR, &
RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
Date : .10.2025
JUDGMENT (Rajnish R. Vyas)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
3. While deciding instant writ petitions pertaining to alleged
illegalities committed during conducting the viva voce of the candidates
interested in appointment as Police Patil, we are guided by following
observations of Honourable Apex Court, in case of State of West Bengal
Vs. Baisakhi Bhattacharya and others, (AIR 2025 SCC 1882).
Belkhede, PS
11 wp4360.20251..doc
"19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid
discussion:
.When an in-depth factual enquiry reveals systematic
irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermines
the integrity of the entire selection process, the result
should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when
possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates
should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.
.The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be
based on satisfaction derived from sufficient material
collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is
not necessary for the material collected to conclusively
prove malpractice beyond reasonable doubt. The standard
of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systematic
mes. The probability test is applicable.
. despite the inconvenience caused to untainted
candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the
process is proven, due weightage has to be given to
maintaining the purity of this selection process.
. individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all
cases for practical reasons when the fact establish that the
entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a
large scale".
4. The petitioners, (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter would be
referred to as "the successful candidates") and respondent Nos. 4 to 15
in Writ Petition No. 4361/2025 and the respondent Nos. 4 to 13 in Writ
Petition No. 4360/2025 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter would be
referred to as "the unsuccessful candidates").
Belkhede, PS
12 wp4360.20251..doc
5. In short, it is the case of the petitioners that they were
selected in pursuance with an advertisement(16-3-2023), which was
followed by written examination(8-4-2023 and 9-4-2023) and oral
interview(10-4-2023 and 11-4-2023) and accordingly, were also
granted appointment order(12-4-2023) on the post of Police Patil, in
different villages.
6. It was their case that some unsuccessful candidates made
complaint to the government officers alleging malpractice in selection
process, more particularly, in oral interview, due to which enquiry was
directed to conducted by the collector Bhandara through additional
collector, Bhandara.
7. In the enquiry report(May 2023), it was found that the
selection process was not conducted in fair manner and consequently
termination orders(4-7-2023) were issued against the successful
candidates. Those candidates challenged their termination by preferring
Original Applications before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
(MAT), Nagpur, which vide its order dated 5.10.2023 set aside the order
of termination issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate ("SDM") and also
Belkhede, PS
13 wp4360.20251..doc
directed to reinstate all the successful candidates, within period of one
month, from the date of receipt of order.
8. The said order setting aside termination was challenged in
Writ Petition No 837/2024 by unsuccessful candidates and this Court
after considering the material on record, vide its judgment in Writ
Petition No. 837/2024 (preferred by unsuccessful candidates) and Writ
Petition No. 846/2024 (preferred by unsuccessful candidates) on
22.4.2025, remanded back matter to the Tribunal with direction to
decide it within period of 90 days. It was directed that the employment
of the successful candidates shall stand protected. Private respondents
in the aforesaid writ petitions were successful candidates.
9. After remand, learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur decided Original Application No. 737/2023 and
Original Application No. 738/2023, by judgment dated 25.7.2025 and
rejected the original applications, on the ground that decision taken by
the State to cancel the selection process and appointments can not be
faulted with.
Belkhede, PS
14 wp4360.20251..doc
10. In the aforesaid background, the successful candidates have
preferred instant petition challenging the judgments passed by the
learned Tribunal.
11. Mr. Chitaley, appearing for the successful candidates has
contended that the judgment impugned is illegal since, there was no
irregularities or malpractices which would require setting aside of entire
selection process. He argued that in an Interview Committee's members
on whom powers were delegated were present which cannot vitiate the
process. He further contended that order canceling the appointment is
issued by exercising powers under rule 9(E) of Maharashtra Village
Police Rules, 1967 ("Rules" for the sake of brevity), which is contrary to
the law. he has relied upon various judgments which shall be dealt with
in later part of judgment.
12. Learned counsel Mr. Deopujari has supported the impugned
order and stated that the manner in which oral interviews were
conducted and marks given, speaks volume for itself and Committee of
members holding oral interviews was consisting of the officers on whom
powers were delegated and therefore, entire process of selection is
vitiated. He also contends that apart from it, various statements recorded
Belkhede, PS
15 wp4360.20251..doc
during course of enquiry clearly shows that entire selection process is
vitiated.
13. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that there is no
dispute upto the stage of written examination and declaration of result
of written examination. There are absolutely no allegations regarding
malpractices till conducting of written examination. Allegations of
unfairness, crops from the stage of conducting of oral interviews and
constitution of the Committee which took the oral interview.
In order to appreciate aforesaid contentions, it is necessary to
consider the fact that the Committee constituted for conducting oral
interviews was consisting of Sub Divisional Magistrate as Chairman, Sub
Divisional Police Officer as Member, Social Welfare Officer as Member,
Tribal Project Officer as Member and Tahsildar of the concerned Taluka
as a Member secretary. Following chart would clear the picture:
Committee for Bhandara
Sr Committee Members as per GR Committee Names and designations
No dated 23.8.2011 Post of Persons actually acted
as member of interview
committee
1 Sub Divisional Magistate Bhandara Chairman Shri Ravindra Rathod, Sub
Divisional Officer,
Bhandara
Belkhede, PS
16 wp4360.20251..doc
2 Sub Divisional Police Oficer, Member Shri Chandrakant Kale P.I.
Bhandara (Mrs. Rashmi Rao) Police Station, Kardha
(Representative)
3 Social Welfare Officer, Bhandara Member Ku. D.B. Ramteke, Social
(Mr. Babasaheb Deshmukh) Welfare Inspector (Class-
3) office of Asstt.
Commissioner, Social
Welfare, Bhandara
(Representative)
4 Tribal Project Officer, Bhandara Member Shri V.A. Tawade, Office
(Mr. Niraj More) Superintendent (Class-3)
and Asstt. Project Officer
(In charge)
(Representatie)
5 Tahsildar, Bhandara Member Shri Arvind Hinge,
Secretary Tahsildar, Bhandar
For Pauni Taluka
Sr Committee Members as per GR Committee Names and designations
No dated 23.8.2011 Post of Persons actually acted
as member of Interview
Committee
1 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chairman Shri Ravindra Rathod Sub
Bhandara Divisional Officer,
Bhandara
2 Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pauni Member Shri Jagannath
(Mr. Sushant Singh) Girhipunje, PSI office of
SDPO Pauni
(Representative)
3 Social Welfare Officer, Bhandara Member Ku. D.B. Ramteke, Social
(Mr. Babasaheb Deshmukh) Welfare Inspector (Class
3) Office of Asstt.
Commissoiner, Social
Welfare, Bhandara,
(Representative)
Belkhede, PS
17 wp4360.20251..doc
4 Tribal Project Officer Bhandara Member Shri V.A. Tawade, Office
(Mr. Niraj More) Superintendent (Class 3)
and Asstt. Project Officer
(In charge)
(Representative)
5 Tahsildar, Pauni Member Smt. Nilima Rangari,
Secretary Tahsildar, Pauni.
From aforesaid chart it would be clear that the members, who
were expected to preside the Interview Committee, in terms of
Government Resolution (GR) dated 23.8.2011, did not preside the
meeting but their representatives took the charge. It is settled principle
of law that when it is mandated that act is required to be performed in
particular manner then same has to be in the said manner only. It is not
even disputed by the successful candidates that Interview Committee
was not consisting of the members on whom powers were delegated.
On the contrary, their stand is that delegation is permissible.
14. Reliance placed by the petitioners on rule 3 of the aforesaid
Rules is totally misplaced, as the said provision pertains to
administration, control and direction to village police which is to be
exercised by the District Magistrate, who may be with sanction of the
State Government or the Commissioner delegate all or any of the powers
Belkhede, PS
18 wp4360.20251..doc
conferred on or exercisable by him or under the provisions of the Rules
to Sub Divisional Magistrate or the Taluka Magistrate.
Thus, it can be said that such delegation would be only
relatable to District Magistrate and none else. It is further to be noted
that the Committee constituted for taking oral interviews was required
to assess performance of the candidate and his personality with
experienced eyes of the superior officers. Delegating powers on the
officers would not be permissible in law and would amount to rewriting
GR by which the Committee was constituted, in case in hand, GR dated
23.8.2011.
15. Constitution of Interview Committee was fundamentally
defective due to delegation of powers, which was impermissible and thus
entire process is vitiated.
16. The argument advanced by successful candidates that having
participated in selection process, now unsuccessful candidates cannot
challenge the process, may seem impressive at first glance but if
appreciated meticulously, it would be clear that said argument is
superficial for the reason that the unsuccessful candidates were not at
all, aware about the designations and name of the members of Interview
Belkhede, PS
19 wp4360.20251..doc
Committee. It is clear from record that names and designation of the
members of Interview Committee were not displayed.
17. Another contention that there was no fixed procedure for
taking the interviews and the members of Selection Committee have
followed the appropriate procedure is also not appealable since the very
peculiar system of giving marks that too by different method, was
adopted by the members of the Committee, which shows that there was
no uniformity in allotment of marks.
18. Some of the members have given marks in numbers whereas
others have given the marks by way of giving *(star). The procedure
adopted is thus unfair as every candidate was required to be judged on a
single scale. Almost all the unsuccessful candidates, who were parties in
Original Application and parties before this Court have secured more
marks in written test than successful candidates selected as Police Patil.
It is further pertinent to mention here that the Collector, while
considering the enquiry report has further stated that persons, who were
members of the Interview Committee were also called in enquiry and
their statement was recorded.
Belkhede, PS
20 wp4360.20251..doc
19. One Mr. Jagannath Giripunje, Police Sub Inspector; Office of
Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pavni, who conducted oral interview being
the proxy/representative of Sub Divisional Officer, Bhandara had
submitted in his explanation in enquiry that as per directions of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sakoli, he appeared on behalf of
Superintendent of Police. He sated that as per directions of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Bhandara, marks were given in form of *star i.e.
one * for each five marks by pencil and said mark sheet was submitted in
the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Bhandara.
20. Similarly, one of the members Mr. C.R. Kale, Police Inspector,
in his explanation, stated that he was authorized by Sub Divisional Police
Officer to act as a member of Committee on behalf of Deputy
Superintendent of Police Bhandara and as per instructions given by
Mr. Ravindra Rathod, Sub Divisional Magistrate and Mr. Ravindra Hinge,
Tasildar, Bhandara, he gave marks in code language and handed over
mark sheet immediately to Mr. Ravindra Rathod.
21. On the contrary Mr. V.A. Taswade, Office Superintendent,
Integrated Tribal Development Department gave his explanation and
Belkhede, PS
21 wp4360.20251..doc
stated that marks were given by pencil in numbers and was handed over
to the Chairman of Selection Committee. He acted as a member of
Interview Committee on behalf of the Office of Project Officer as per
direction given by Mr. Niraj More, Project Officer. statements of various
persons were also recorded which are part of record.
22. It must also be stated that, the interviews were completed
within 1 to 3 minutes. Though the process of interview was captured in
CCTV, it was found that there was no sound in the footage. During
enquiry, no document was made available showing
endorsement/marking during the oral interview. On the contrary, Sub
Divisional Officer had stated that papers having said endorsement cum
marking are destroyed being rough work.
23. Apart from it, a statement of one of the officers which is at
page No. 515 is required to be taken into consideration. The said officer
by name Mr. Sushant Singh, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sakoli/Pavni
has stated that during Police Patil recruitment, interview process sheets
were given. Every sheet had name of candidate and corresponding
space for giving marks. One fails to understand as to why the name of
Belkhede, PS
22 wp4360.20251..doc
candidate was required to be given in the assessment sheet, which
corroborates the stand taken by the unsuccessful candidates that process
of selection was vitiated by malpractices.
24. When entire selection process is tainted, there cannot be pick
and choose policy of certain candidates. integrity of selection process is
full of doubt and thus entire selection process is required to be set aside.
It is very difficult to segregate role of each candidate. As far as judgment
cited by counsel for the petitioner reported in case of Madan Lal Vs.
State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in 1995 (3) SCC) 486 is concern, it
is to be stated that in the said case it was observed that assignment of
Mark is function of interview committee and just because lower mark are
awarded, it cannot be said that it has resulted into giving unfair
treatment. The case is totally distinguishable on facts as in the instant
case, it is not issue whether lower or higher marks are allotted, issue is
manner in which the marks were given. Further contention of the
petitioner that CCTV footage showing recording of taking interview for
few minutes only, cannot be a conclusive proof of illegality, is also liable
to be rejected, since the enquiry report also takes into consideration
statements of various persons, discussed Supra.
Belkhede, PS
23 wp4360.20251..doc
In case of Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna Vs. Modh
Vinaykumar Dasrathlal, reported in 2011(7) SCC 308, Honourable Apex
Court has stated that, in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular
mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly, also
cannot be disputed. According to the petitioner, since there were no
rules, procedure adopted is also proper, needs no further elaboration,
since we have observed that manner in which entire selection process is
done clearly shows that integrity of selection process has been
compromised.
25. Judgment cited by the petitioner in case of Madras Institute
of Development Studies Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan, reported in (2016) 1
SCC 454, laying down the law that having taken part in the process of
selection with full knowledge that recruitment was being made under
the general rules, the candidates had waived their right to question and
the advertisement or methodology adopted, is also cannot be disputed.
The said judgment can be distinguished since in the case in hand, the
candidates were not at all aware about designation and names of the
Belkhede, PS
24 wp4360.20251..doc
members of selection committee, and therefore, taking objection
regarding delegation of powers could not have been expected to be
taken immediately.
26. Law down by other judgments cited by the counsel for
petitioner also cannot be disputed, but those can be distinguished on the
facts involved therein. We have already taken into consideration
principle of law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in case of State
of West Bengal Vs. Baisakhi Bhattacharya , discussed Supra, which put
the controversy at rest.
27. In the aforesaid background, and keeping in mind the scope
of judicial review while considering challenge to the order of Tribunal,
we come to conclusion that no case is made out by the petitioners which
require interference at the hands of this court. Hence petitions are
dismissed.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
****
Belkhede, PS
25 wp4360.20251..doc
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that since the interim order is operating in their favour, same
may be extended for further period of four weeks.
Though the said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 4 to 13, considering the aforesaid fact that the interim
relief was operating in favour of the petitioners, in the interest of justice,
we extend the interim relief for further four weeks.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Belkhede, PS
