[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Purushottam S/O. Yuvraj Meshram And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:864-DB
J-wp5353.23 final.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.5353 OF 2023
1. Purushottam S/o. Yuvraj Meshram,
Age 49 years, Occ : Service,
R/o. Z.P. Upper Primary School Mandar,
Tah. Wani, Distt. Yawatmal.
2. Devrao s/o. Devidas Debare,
Age 47 years Occ : Service,
R/o. Z.P. Upper Primary School Hiwari,
Tah. & Dist. Yawatmal.
3. Bharati s/o. Vithoba Atram,
Age about 47 years, Occ : Service,
R/o. Z.P. Upper Primary School Hiwari,
Tahsil & Distt. Yawatmal.
4. Vinod s/o. Shriramji Kumbhre,
Aged about 40, Occ : Service,
R/o. Z.P. Upper Primary School Rampuri,
P.S.Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur.
5. Dhanraj s/o. Timaji Raulkar,
Aged about 47, Occ : Service,
R/o. Z.P. Upper Primary School Panjara Lodhi,
Taluka & Distt. Nagpur.
6. Vaishali D/o. Janardhan Garkal,
Amendment carried out
as per Court's order Age 42 yr., Occ. Service,
dated 22.8.2023. R/o. Mangal Dham Colony, Amravati,
Distt. Amravati. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
J-wp5353.23 final.odt 2/10
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. District Selection Committee,
through its Chairman & Collector Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
4. District Selection Committee,
through its Chairman & Collector Nagpur,
District Nagpur.
5. District Selection Committee,
through its Chairman & Collector Amravati,
District Amravati.
6. Chief Executive Officer &
Member District Selection Committee,
Zilla Parishad Yavatmal.
7. Chief Executive Officer &
Member District Selection Committee,
Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
8. Chief Executive Officer &
Member District Selection Committee,
Zilla Parishad Amravati.
9. Ku. Pallavi Digambar Ninghot,
Amendment carried
out as per Court's Age 43 Yrs, Occ : Service,
order dated R/0.4, Bhagyoday Colony,
21.4.2025.
Near Gond Baba Mandir, M.I.D.C. Road,
Dastur Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. And Dist. Amravati. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Mr. M.A. Sable, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
Mr. P.A. Kadu, Advocate for Intervenor/Respondent No.9.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J-wp5353.23 final.odt 3/10
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13th JANUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 19th JANUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matter
is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of
the parties and at the request of parties.
2. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the
advertisement dated 5.8.2023 issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 5
for the post of Extension Officer (Education) to the extent of clause
7.1 in respect of condition of 50% marks in the graduation and
further clause 14 which is in respect of upper age limit of 40 and 45
years for Open Category and backward class respectively.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are Assistant
and Graduate Teachers working with respective Zilla Parishads
since the date of their appointments. They have completed the
degree of Bachelor of Education from the respective Universities.
According to them, they being qualified for the post of Extension
Officer (Education), (Class-III, Grade-II), applied for the said post
which was advertised by the respondent No.2 i.e. Zilla Parishad,
Yavatmal mandated obtaining of graduation degree with minimum
50% marks as also obtaining 50 % marks in Bachelor in Education.
It is an admitted fact on record that even though the petitioners
have obtained more than 50% marks in Bachelor of Education, they
have not obtained said marks i.e. 50% in their graduation
examination. The said condition mandating obtaining 50% marks
in graduation is challenged on various grounds as enumerated in
the petition. In pursuance to an interim order dated 22.8.2023
petitioner No.6 was permitted to submit her application in
pursuance to the said advertisement. It is brought on record that
said petitioner No.6 in pursuance to the interim order has
participated in the examination and has obtained 148 marks.
4. We have heard Mr. S.S. Dhengale, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 to 5, Mr. M.A. Sable, Advocate for Respondent
No.7, Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.8 and Mr. P.A.
Kadu, Advocate for Intervenor.
5. Mr. S.S. Dhengale, learned counsel for the petitioners
points out that even though the petitioners have not obtained 50%
marks in the graduation level that cannot be a detriment to
participate in the said examination process. According to him, they
should be exempted from the said condition as the said condition
was not contemplated in the Notification dated 10.6.2014 for the
first time and not prior thereto. He further submits that clause 14
of the said advertisement in respect of not exceeding age of 40 and
45 years for open category and backward category respectively on
the last date of filing form is also unreasonable and discriminatory
since the year 2008 and after the issuance of Notification dated
10.6.2014 the post of Extension Officer (Education) was vacant and
there was no requirement of filling of the post by the Rural
Development Department. It is, therefore, his submission that since
no post of the said Extension Officer (Education) was filled since
the year 2008, the petitioners were not able to appear in any
examination due to the lethargic attitude of respondent Nos.1 to 8.
It is his further submission that no recruitment took place since the
year 2008 till the year 2015 and, therefore, both these conditions
are onerous and unreasonable as far as petitioners are concerned.
6. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.1691/2016 as also Civil Appeal No.429-430/2021 and
Judgment of High Court of Adjudicature at Rajasthan Bench at
Jodhpur in Civil Writ Petition No.10537/2024.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8
Zilla Parishad submits that the conditions as mentioned in the
advertisement are reasonable and are in pursuance to statutory
Rules, namely, Maharashtra Zilla Parishad, District Services
(Recruitment) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2014 which were
introduced by way of Notification dated 10.6.2014. He further
states that the contention of the petitioners that since they obtained
graduation degree prior to the Notification dated 10.6.2014 and,
therefore, they should be exempted from the said condition of
obtaining 50% marks is misconceived. He also submits that the
recruitment of the employees is a policy decision and it does not
mandate it has to be taken annually. Mr. A.J. Kadu, learned
counsel for the intervenor/respondent No.9 also supports the
contentions advanced by the counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8.
8. We have considered the contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties. A short issue which falls for
consideration is even if the petitioners are not eligible on the date
of issuance of advertisement to apply for the post of Extension
Officer (Education), can they be said to be entitled to participate in
the said recruitment process. The ancillary question which falls for
consideration of this Court in the present petition is the cut-off date
for assessing the eligibility of the persons like petitioners.
9. As stated above, it is an admitted position on record
that the petitioners are not eligible as per clause 7 of the
Advertisement which mandates obtaining of 50% marks in
graduation and 50% marks in B.Ed. Examination. The contentions
of the petitioners that since no recruitment was done from the year
2008 till the year 2014, they need to be exempted from the said
condition is entirely misconceived and is liable to be rejected. It is a
settled principle of law that the crucial date for assessing eligibility
is the last date of submission of the application in pursuance to the
advertisement. As has been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition No.4561/2023 by relying upon Judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1993 Supreme Court Weekly 1488
and (2007) 4 SCC 454, the last date for submission of application
would be the crucial date when the eligibility would be assessed.
The subsequent or qualification obtained before that date would not
be of any avail. A beneficial reference in this regard can also be
made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ
Petition No.724/2023 and more particularly para 46 thereof, it is
held as under :
"46. It is also very well settled that if there are
relevant rules which prescribe the date on which
the eligibility should be possessed, those rules
will prevail. In the absence of rules or any other
date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement
for determining the eligibility, there is a judicial
chorus holding that it would be the last date for
submission of the application."
10. Likewise in the judgment in Civil Appeal
No.7602/2023 in para 24 it is held as under :
"24. It is well settled that eligibility criteria /
conditions, unless provided otherwise in the
extant rules or the advertisement, must be
fulfilled by the candidate by the last date for
receipt of applications specified in the
advertisement [See: Rakesh Kumar Sharma
(supra)]."
11. If the controversy in the present matter is adjudicated,
we see no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. The
eligibility criteria in obtaining 50% marks in graduation and B.Ed.
examination cannot be said to be arbitrary. The same is in
pursuance to the statutory Rules which mandate the said criteria.
The said Rules came into force on 10.6.2014 and admittedly were
in vogue when the impugned advertisement issued on 5.8.2023. It,
therefore, cannot be said that the mandating the said conditions are
arbitrary.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied
upon judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board and another (2016) 4 SCC 754. However,
in the said judgment the question which arose for consideration is,
whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the
O.B.C. category and submits certificate after the last date
mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post
under the O.B.C. category or not. In the backdrop of this question,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, 'the candidate can submit the
O.B.C. certificate subsequently'. Thus, it was a case of subsequent
submission of O.B.C. certificate and not inherent ineligibility to
appear as per the advertisement. Thus, the judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no useful. Similarly,
in Judgment in Civil Appeal No.429-430/2021 the question which
arose for consideration was entirely different inasmuch as it was a
matter regarding appointment of person with lesser merit ignoring
those who have secured more marks it would be violative of Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This is not the case in hand.
The question which arises in the present matter is regarding the
eligibility of the petitioners with respect to the advertisement issued
by the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners do not qualify as
being eligible, they having not obtained 50% marks in graduation.
Thus, on the date when the advertisement was issued, the
petitioners were not eligible and, therefore, not entitled to be
considered for the post of Extension Officer (Education).
13. The challenge and the grounds raised in the petition
regarding the fact of omission to recruit or filled up Post from 2008
to 2014 would be a matter within a domain of the employer and
cannot be said to be arbitrary only because such post/s were not
filled for considerable period of time. The eligibility criteria as
mentioned in the application is back by statutory rules framed in
that regard. Same is the case with clause 14 which mandates age
limit for open and reserved candidates. Only because there was no
recruitment and during that period the petitioners crossed the age
limit cannot be a reason for them to challenge the said condition as
onerous. The contentions apart from them being meritless are
misconceived and cannot be sustained. The petition is, therefore,
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the
following order.
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/01/2026 16:15:20
