[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nikita Pradeekumar Sudele And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 19 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1952-DB
*1* wp13975a13967o17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13975 OF 2017
Kritikakumari d/o Pradeekumar Sudele,
Age 23 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, District-Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education
Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Energy,
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
Company Limited, Plot No.C-19,
'Prakashganga', 7th Floor,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-51,
Through its Managing Director.
4. The Chief Engineer,
EHV & OM Pune Zone,
Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
Company Limited,
Pune Zone, Rasta Peth,
Administrative Building,
3rd Floor, Block No.402, Pune.
5. The Director,
Directorate of Vocational Education
*2* wp13975a13967o17
& Training, 3, Mahapalika Marg,
P.B. No.1036, Mumbai-400 001.
...RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO.13967 OF 2017
1. Nikita d/o Pradeekumar Sudele,
Age 21 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
District-Jalgaon.
2. Surraiya d/o Salim Patel,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Fekri, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education
Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Energy,
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
Company Limited, Plot No.C-19,
'Prakashganga', 7th Floor,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-51,
Through its Managing Director.
4. The Chief Engineer,
EHV & OM, Nashik Zone,
*3* wp13975a13967o17
Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
Company Limited,
New Administrative Building,
Saikheda Road, Near Durgamata Mandir,
Jail Road, Nashik.
5. The Director,
Directorate of Vocational Education
& Training, 3, Mahapalika Marg,
P.B. No.1036, Mumbai-400 001.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.J. Salgare, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5/State.
Shri S.V. Adwant, advocate for respondent Nos.3 and
4/Company.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
&
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
Reserved on : 08 January 2026
Pronounced on : 19 January 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :
-
1. Heard.
2. Since the parties, facts and issues in these two
petitions are identical, they are being decided by this common
judgment. For properly appreciating the contentions, the facts in
*4* wp13975a13967o17
Writ Petition No.13975/2017 are taken into consideration in this
judgment.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of the parties.
4. By these petitions, the petitioners are praying for
quashing and setting aside the impugned decision dated
03.11.2017 rendered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 company
thereby, cancelling their candidature for recruitment to the posts
of Technician Grade-IV in respondent Nos.3 and 4 company on
the ground that they are not possessing requisite qualifications.
They further pray that their candidature for the post of
Technician Grade IV be considered and they be appointed on the
said post in accordance with the select/ merit list.
5. According to the petitioners, respondent No.3
published advertisement No.2/2016 on 01.04.2016 for filling up
various posts of Technician Grade IV. The petitioners applied for
the said post under women quota i.e. 30% reservation. The
petitioners went through selection process conducted by
respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their names appeared in the select/
merit list. As per the directions, the petitioners appeared before
*5* wp13975a13967o17
respondent No.4 for scrutiny of documents and produced the
original certificates. However, they were orally informed that
their claims were kept on hold. As such, the petitioners submitted
the representation. On 03.11.2017, respondent Nos.3 and 4
uploaded their decision on their website declaring that the
petitioners are not possessing requisite qualification and as such,
are not satisfying the terms and conditions stipulated in the
advertisement. Their candidature has been cancelled on the
ground that the petitioners have not passed I.T.I. (Electrician) and
they are not possessing certificates of passing I.T.I. in Electrician
Trade issued by the NCTVT.
6. According to the petitioners, the Government of
India through its Finance Ministry has announced measures for
upgradation of Industrial Training Institutes (ITI) in 2004. As per
the said scheme, existing ITIs were to be upgraded into Centres
of Excellence (COE) for producing multi-skilled workforce of
world standard. In pursuance of the aforesaid scheme introduced
by the Government of India, the State of Maharashtra on
12.12.2008 selected some ITIs from the State including ITI at
Bhusawal as Centre of Excellence and accordingly, upgraded
*6* wp13975a13967o17
those Institutes and designated them as the COE. The upgraded
vocational courses were started from the academic year 2006-
2007.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that they successfully
passed Electrical Sector Trade from I.T.I., Bhusawal. The
Regional Joint Director, Vocational Education and Training,
Nashik, also issued the provisional National Trade Certificate to
the petitioners, which indicates that the petitioners passed
Electrical Sector Trade from one of the Centre of Excellence.
According to the petitioners, even respondent No.3 company
issued administrative circular No.505 dated 01.03.2017 and
considered the Electrical Sector Trade of COE as equivalent to
that of Electrician Trade of ITI. The respondent No.3 company
also issued addendum No.1 dated 14.11.2017 thereby, declaring
the Module Course of 'Operation and Maintenance of Equipment
used in HT, LT Sub-Station and Cable Jointing' as equivalent to
that of the course of ITI (Electrical) and accordingly, amended
the recruitment regulations relating to qualifications for the post
of Technician Grade IV.
8. According to the petitioners, the Deputy Director of
*7* wp13975a13967o17
Vocational Education, State of Maharashtra, issued a clarification
dated 13.11.2017 that both the courses i.e. old and upgraded one
through COE are equivalent as per the Government Resolution
dated 09.07.2015, therefore, COE Electrical is regarded as
equivalent to the trades of Wireman and Electrician. In the
meantime, the Government of Maharashtra through its Higher
and Technical Education Department also issued clarification
vide letter dated 31.07.2013 that the candidates who have passed
Multi Skilled Training from the Centres of Excellence be
regarded as having requisite qualification and such candidates be
considered for recruitment. It is thereafter, the Government
Resolution dated 09.07.2015 was issued clarifying the issue of
equivalence awarded to certain trades conducted through the
Centres of Excellence with the trades being conducted in ITIs.
According to the petitioners, various departments like the
Railway Board have clarified in their recruitment advertisements
that the candidates who have passed upgraded courses from COE
are eligible to apply for such posts.
9. The learned advocate for the petitioner Shri Shinde
has invited attention of this Court to the educational qualification
*8* wp13975a13967o17
and experience required for the purpose of recruiting the
candidates for the post of Technician Grade IV. As per the
recruitment advertisement dated 01.04.2016, qualification
required by respondent Nos.3 and 4 company is to possess the
National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the National
Council for Training in Vocational Trades (NCTVT) under the
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 or the National Trade Certificate issued
by the NCTVT after completion of trade from ITI. According to
the learned advocate for the petitioners, they have participated in
the selection process, they also found their names in the selection
list, however, at the time of appointment, they have been
informed that they were not qualified to apply for the post which
is advertised as their qualification was not requisite to seek
appointment. The learned advocate submitted that the petitioners
are possessing COE upgraded ITI course, therefore, action of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 of not considering the candidature of the
petitioners on the ground that they do not have the ITI Electrician
trade certificate, is illegal and inconsistent with the policy of the
Government as various Departments of the Government have
issued circulars thereby, clarifying that the ITI courses are
equivalent to COE courses.
*9* wp13975a13967o17
10. The learned advocate Shri Shinde further pointed
out that after the recruitment process in question is completed,
respondent No.3 has adopted the guidelines of the Government
by passing the administrative circular dated 01.03.2017 on the
basis of the Government Resolution dated 09.07.2015. It is
informed to this Court that in the subsequent recruitment drive
conducted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the same post, the
qualification possessed by the petitioners was considered.
However, in view of pendency of the instant petitions, the
petitioners have not applied to respondent Nos.3 and 4 in
pursuance of their fresh advertisements. Shri Shinde, therefore,
submitted that the impugned decision of respondent Nos.3 and 4
rejecting candidature of the petitioners is illegal and
unconstitutional.
11. The learned AGP has relied upon the affidavit in
reply dated 14.11.2018 filed by respondent No.5 and submitted
that the State of Maharashtra vide resolution dated 09.07.2015
made it clear that the trades which were conducted under the
COE are equivalent to the trades in the ITI. The learned AGP,
therefore, prayed for passing appropriate order on merits.
*10* wp13975a13967o17
12. Per contra, the learned advocate Shri Adwant
appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that admittedly,
the petitioners were not possessing requisite educational
qualification at the relevant time of recruitment advertisement,
however, the petitioners had participated in the recruitment
process. At the time of scrutiny of documents, it was revealed
that their qualification is not as per the advertisement published
on 01.04.2016 and, therefore, their candidature could not be
considered.
13. Shri Adwant specifically submitted that the
recruitment process was initiated in the year 2016 and the posts
advertised have now been filled in. There is no vacancy. This
Court has also not granted any interim order making the
recruitment subject to result of these petitions. Moreover, the
petitioners have also not taken any effort to apply subsequently
in another recruitment drive undertaken by respondent Nos.3 and
4. They have also not approached this Court for insisting to pass
interim orders in view of another recruitment drive.
14. Shri Adwant further submitted that respondent No.3
Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited
*11* wp13975a13967o17
(MSETCL) is the company incorporated under the Companies
Act. The Government Resolution dated 09.07.2015 issued by the
State of Maharashtra was not adopted by respondent Nos.3 and
4. The decisions in respect of recruitment and qualification are
being taken by the Board of Directors of respondent No.3. The
circulars or resolutions issued by the Government are not ipso
facto applicable to respondent Nos.3 and 4 being the company
though the State of Maharashtra is the major stakeholder. In
short, according to Shri Adwant, the Government Resolution was
not adopted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 when the recruitment
process was undertaken.
15. Shri Adwant further invited attention of this Court to
the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.564/2018 (Rohini Dada Shimpi vs. The Secretary, Higher and
Technical Education Department, Mumbai and others), wherein,
in identical situation this Court held that the circular dated
01.03.2017 was not in existence when the advertisement was
issued and moreover, Government Resolution dated 09.07.2015
was also not adopted and accepted by respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Shri Adwant, therefore, prayed that the petitions be dismissed.
*12* wp13975a13967o17
16. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties,
we have perused the documents brought on record. It is evident
that respondent No.3 is the company incorporated under the
Companies Act wherein, the State of Maharashtra has majority
shareholding. The petitioners contended that the State of
Maharashtra vide its Government Resolution dated 09.07.2015
has directed that the COE courses be treated equivalent to the
courses of ITI. However, the fact remains that the said
Government Resolution was not adopted or accepted by
respondent Nos.3 and 4 at the time of recruitment process in
question. The Company of the Government is not the Department
of the Government and the executive instructions issued by the
Government do not automatically apply to it. Respondent No.3
company is the distinct legal entity separate from the State
Government. The executive instructions, Government resolutions
or circulars issued by the Government are not per se binding on
such company unless same are statutorily made applicable or
expressly adopted by the Board of Directors of the company. In
absence of any resolution or formal adoption, the Government
circular/ resolution issued by the Government cannot be enforced
against the respondent company. The service conditions of
*13* wp13975a13967o17
employees of the respondent company are governed solely by its
own rules and regulations. Though the petitioners contended that
they were competent and qualified for the post advertised by the
respondent company, however, admittedly, as per the
advertisement, they were not possessing requisite qualification as
desired by the respondent company at the time of their
recruitment process. It is other matter that subsequently,
respondent No.3 company has adopted the Government
Resolution and permitted candidates who are possessing
qualifications like the petitioners, to apply for the said posts in
their subsequent recruitment drive. The petitioners, who have not
obtained necessary interim order from this Court, were expected
to apply in pursuance of the subsequent recruitment drive since
their qualifications were accepted. However, having failed to do
so, now it cannot be directed to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to
appoint the petitioners on the said posts, which are neither vacant
nor made subject to the decision of this Court.
17. Considering the peculiar facts of this case, this Court
also tried to extract information from respondent Nos.3 and 4 as
to whether, there are vacant posts available. However, Shri
*14* wp13975a13967o17
Adwant, after taking instructions from respondent Nos.3 and 4
through email, submitted that now the posts are not vacant and
they are filling the posts through contract basis.
18. In the above circumstances and having regard to the
peculiar facts of the case, particularly that the petitioners had
participated in the selection process, their names appeared in the
select/merit list, and that subsequently respondent No.3 has itself
accepted the equivalence of the qualification possessed by the
petitioners, this Court is of the view that the petitioners deserve
limited equitable relief. Therefore, to secure ends of justice,
respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed that in the event of future
recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-IV or equivalent
post, may be permanent or on contract basis, the candidature of
the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with the
prevailing recruitment rules and qualifications, without insisting
upon fresh experience, and by granting them appropriate age
relaxation. In near future, if any vacancy arises on contract basis
and if the petitioners apply for such contractual vacancy, it is
expected that respondent Nos.3 and 4 would consider
candidature of the petitioners sympathetically and positively.
*15* wp13975a13967o17
19. The Writ Petitions are accordingly, disposed of.
20. Rule is, accordingly, discharged.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
