[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Suvarna Bhimaji Thingle vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 2 February, 2026
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik, S.M.Modak
2026:BHC-AS:5608-DB
Ingale 8-wp-10404-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10404 OF 2019
Smt. Suvarna Bhimaji Thigle
Age : 36 years
Occu: Nil.
R/at : 2368, Behind Zilla Parishad School
Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary to the Government
Revenue Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Secretary,
General Administrative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
3. Collector of Pune .... Respondent
****
Mr. Rushikesh G. Bhagat i/b Khandeparkar & Associates, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent-State.
****
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S.M.MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J. ) :
1. Heard Mr. Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Salunkhe, learned AGP appearing for the respondent-
State.
Ingale 8-wp-10404-19.odt
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal', for short),
dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The
matter pertains to the appointment of the petitioner in Group
(Class III) cadre under the Project Affected Persons category ('PAP',
for short). Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had sought a
direction to the respondents to appoint her in a Group C (Class III)
cadre under the PAP category by giving priority to her whenever a
job opportunity is available in the government department. It was
the case of the petitioner that the PAPs should have been regarded
as a separate and distinct category for the purpose of selection
process.
3. It is submitted that an error has been committed by the
respondents in equating the petitioner, a PAP candidate, with all
those who were competing under the open category. Our attention
is invited by learned counsel for the petitioner to the Government
Resolution ('GR', for short) dated 27/10/2009 which provides
reservation of 5% for PAPs.
4. Pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2015
for various posts, the petitioner duly applied. She appeared for the
Ingale 8-wp-10404-19.odt
written examination on 04/10/2015 for clerk-cum-typist post. The
results were declared on 11/03/2016. As per the provisions of GR
dated 27/10/2009, although there is a reservation of 5% for the
PAPs, their selection has to be through open competition. The GR
provides that PAPs cannot be appointed without following the
prescribed procedure of issuing of an advertisement, conduct of
the examination and merit-wise selection. The petitioner scored
50 marks out of 200 in the said examination. The passing criteria
for the said examination was 90 marks out of 200. The petitioner
failed in the said examination, hence, she was held not eligible for
the said post.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point
out that if 5% reservation is prescribed for PAPs, it would stand to
reason that PAPs have to be treated differently from the other
categories and that a separate passing criteria for the PAPs should
have been prescribed. It is submitted that prescribing the same
passing criteria for PAPs as well as other candidates from the open
category, would amount to treating unequals equally and hence,
such a criteria is unreasonable and arbitrary. Learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Ingale 8-wp-10404-19.odt
Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and
ors1 in support of his submissions.
6. Learned AGP on the other hand invited our attention
to the findings of the Tribunal in support of her submissions.
7. Before we proceed to consider the submissions, it
would be pertinent to reproduce some of the relevant observations
of full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and anr.
(supra), paragraphs 38 to 41 reads thus :
"38. Perusal of section 16 of the said Act would also reveal that an
eligible affected person is also entitled to get land acquired by the
State Government under section 14 with the occupancy status held
by such a project affected person earlier. It can thus be seen that an
affected person does not come on the roads on the execution of the
projects. Under section 16 of the said Act, a duty is cast upon the
State Government for complete rehabilitation of the project affected
persons. Not only this, but under section 16, a person whose land
has been acquired for the project, is also entitled to get land in the
benefited zone on the conditions stipulated under section 16. It
would thus be difficult to appreciate the contention of Mr. Mantri,
learned Counsel, that a person whose name appears in the register
maintained by the Collector, must be given an appointment on the
basis of seniority in the register, without calling him for interview or
competing with others.
39. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the directions
given by the Division Bench in Sunil's Case, that the project affected
persons should be appointed strictly according to the seniority list
maintained by the Collector and that, they are not required to
compete between themselves and that they are entitled to be
appointed without any competitive examinations, are inconsistent
with the mandate of the Constitution of India under Articles 14 and
16. We find, that the same is also not permissible under the said Act
and the relevant Government Resolutions. As we have already held,
the quota of 5% fixed for project affected persons is nothing but a
1 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 961
Ingale 8-wp-10404-19.odt
horizontal reservation provided for project affected persons and the
candidates from that category will have to compete amongst
themselves under the recruitment rules and the best amongst them
would be entitled to be appointed.
40. Now, let us consider whether it is necessary for publishing an
advertisement, calling applications from candidates belonging to
project affected person, while filling up vacancies reserved for the
said category. The Apex Court, in the case of Excise Superintendent,
Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A P, vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and
others, 1996 AIR SCW 3979 has considered the requirement of
calling applications by advertisement. It has been observed thus:
"Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the
view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable
which would be consistent with the principles of fair-play,
justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that
many a candidate are unable to have the names sponsored,
though their names are either registered or are waiting to be
registered in the employment exchange, with the result that
the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the
candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the
employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a
deserving candidate are deprived of the right to be considered
for appointment to a post under the State. Better view
appears to be that it should be mandatory for the
requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the
employment exchange, and employment exchange should
sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning
Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and
reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate
Department or undertaking or establishment, should call for
the names by publication in the newspapers having wider
circulation and also display on their office notice boards or
announce on radio, television and employment news-
bulleltins, and then consider the cases of all the candidates
who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play
would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter
of employment would be available to all eligible candidates."
41. No doubt, that under the Government Circulars, the Collectors
are also required to sponsor the names of eligible candidates to the
recruitment authority. However, since we have already held
hereinabove, that the district-wise reservation is not permissible
under the Constitution, the candidates from the other districts, who
are project affected persons, would also be entitled to compete with
the candidates who are sponsored by the Collector. In the absence of
Ingale 8-wp-10404-19.odt
the advertisement, it will not be possible for them to get knowledge
about recruitment process initiated in the areas beyond their
district. We, therefore, find that in order to ensure the equality of
opportunity which is guaranteed in the matter of employment under
Article 16 of the Constitution, it would be necessary that the posts
reserved for project affected persons are advertised so that all the
eligible candidates can submit their applications and get an
opportunity to compete with others in their category."
8. We find that the GR dated 27/10/2009 provides for a
reservation of 5% for PAPs. No doubt GR provides that the PAP is
entitled for getting an employment but the same is subject to the
conditions stipulated in the GR dated 27/10/2009. The conditions
are not unreasonable or arbitrary as can be seen from the decision
of the Full Bench above referred.
9. We find in the present case that the advertisement was
duly issued wherein 5% of the posts were reserved for the PAPs.
The petitioner participated in the selection process. The Petitioner
did not challenge any of the conditions of advertisement. One of
the condition was of obtaining 90 marks out of 200 as the passing
criteria. Having appeared for the written examination, the
petitioner obtained 50 marks and therefore was not eligible. It is
after the results were declared that the petitioner comes out they
were unfairly equated with the open category candidates in the
matter of prescribing the passing criteria. We do not find that the
Ingale 8-wp-10404-19.odt
criteria prescribed of 90 marks for the PAPs is in any way arbitrary.
The respondents are not depriving the petitioner of the benefit of
reservation. However, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of
such reservation only upon fulfilling the terms and conditions
mentioned in the GR dated 27/10/2009. Prescribing the same
passing criteria for open category candidates and the PAPs does
not amount to hostile discrimination. This is not a case where
unequals are treated equally. It is only upon passing the written
examination, that the petitioner's case would be considered as
against 5% reservation provided for the PAPs. It is not the
petitioner's case that there is any breach of reservation policy
provided to PAPs. The requirement of the petitioner passing the
examination cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary merely
because the passing criteria is the same for the open category
candidates as well as the PAPs. Such a criteria does not fall foul of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. We therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.
(S.M.MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)
