[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Deepak Chhagan Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Principal ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2026:BHC-AS:4362-DB
WP-16020-25.doc
Sharayu Khot.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16020 OF 2025
Deepak Chhagan Rathod ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
----------
Ms. Rutika Karale, Mr. Aditya Shinde, Mr. Prashant Mahajan i/b
Vaibhav V. Ugle for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yatin Shashikant Khochare, "B" Panel Counsel for the Respondent.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No. 2 (PCMC).
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J
Reserved on : 20 January 2026
Pronounced on : 29 January 2026
JUDGMENT :
(Per R.I. Chagla, J.)
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking direction to
the Respondents to forthwith absorb and appoint the Petitioner for
SHARAYU
PANDURANG
the post of Civil Engineering Assistant on the vacant post, as the
KHOT
Digitally
Petitioner is at Sr.No.2 of the wait list for the post of Civil
signed by
SHARAYU
PANDURANG
KHOT
Date:
2026.01.29
14:22:03
+0530 Engineering Assistant on such terms as this Court may deem fit and
proper.
WP-16020-25.doc
2. The Petitioner is having a Bachelor of Arts and
Construction Supervisor course completed from the recognized
university. The Petitioner had come across one advertisement issued
by Respondent No. 2 - The Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
being Advertisement No. 184 of 2022 on 17th August 2022.
3. The Petitioner had pursuant to the said advertisement
applied for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant ("said post") and
application had been filled up online on 7th September 2022 with
the Respondent No. 2.
4. The Petitioner had submitted the form with Respondent
No. 2 for the aforementioned post, and accordingly, received admit
card for the said post.
5. The Petitioner had appeared for the examination on 28th
May 2023 and secured marks of 157.39856.
6. The Petitioner had applied for the said post under VJ-A
category.
WP-16020-25.doc
7. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 prepared final list in which
the name of the Petitioner was showing in the wait list at Sr.No.2.
8. The candidate who was successful in the said
examination had been asked by Respondent No. 2 to join and
accordingly, he joined the said post.
9. Thereafter, the candidate who had joined the said post
voluntarily resigned due to his own and personal difficulty and
accordingly, the said post had become vacant.
10. Respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 12th June 2024
to various candidates on the wait list for filling up the vacant post.
The candidate at Sr.No. 1 of the wait list, i.e. above the Petitioner
applied for the said post.
11. Thereafter, the said candidate viz. Anil Shivsingh Jarwal,
who had applied for the said post appeared before the office of
Respondent No. 2 and made submissions in respect of documentation
on 25th July 2024. It was categorically mentioned that there was one
criminal proceeding pending against the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal.
WP-16020-25.doc
12. The Respondent No. 2 after conducting meetings on 16th
December 2024 and 13th January 2025 with Anil Shivsingh Jarwal,
who had been selected, disqualified the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal at
a subsequent meeting held on 3rd March 2025. The decision was
communicated by the learned Collector to Respondent No. 2 on 4th
March 2025.
13. A letter dated 16th March 2025 had been addressed by
the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal to Respondent No. 2 stating that he is
not interested in joining Respondent No. 2.
14. The Petitioner accordingly made representation to
Respondent No. 2 for absorption in the said post vide letter dated
28th March 2025.
15. The Petitioner received a letter dated 19th August 2025
addressed by Respondent No. 2 informing him about the closure of
the process in respect of the said post.
16. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the closure of the
process in respect of the said post, though the Petitioner claims to be
WP-16020-25.doc
entitled to be absorbed in the said post and delay had been at the
instance of the Respondents, made representations on 14th August
and 20th August 2025.
17. The Respondent No. 1 vide communication issued to
Respondent No. 2 dated 4th September 2025 recorded that the said
Anil Shivsingh Jarwal has been found ineligible for appointment to
the said post.
18. Pursuant to an application under Right to Information,
the Petitioner through letter dated 12th September 2025 learnt that
the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal had not accepted the said post. The
Petitioner had put up his grievances before the Respondent No. 2 and
had followed up the matter, but his representations had not been
considered, in view of the Respondent No. 2 having closed the
process in respect of the said post.
19. Accordingly, the present Petition has been filed.
20. Ms. Karale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has
submitted that the Petitioner being next on the wait list was eligible
WP-16020-25.doc
to be absorbed in the said post of Civil Engineering Assistant. This in
view of the two candidates above him, who had been selected to the
said post, having either not accepted the said post or been
disqualified, i.e. in the case of Anil Shivsingh Jarwal against whom a
criminal case was pending.
21. Ms. Karale has submitted that the Respondent No. 2
ought to have considered that the delay in filling up the said post
after the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal was disqualified, is at the
instance of the Respondents, who could not complete the process
within the stipulated period of one year, for which the selection list
was in operation.
22. Ms. Karale has submitted that the Petitioner ought not to
be made to suffer at the hands of the Respondents, particularly, in
view of the Respondents not being diligent in absorbing the Petitioner
in the said post.
23. Ms. Karale has referred to the letter dated 4th September
2025 by which Respondent No. 1 had intimated to Respondent No. 2
about the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal having been held to be
WP-16020-25.doc
ineligible. She has submitted that the Petitioner's knowledge of this
decision is after expiry of the stipulated period for which the
selection list was in operation.
24. Ms. Karale has relied upon the GR dated 2nd December
2025, which directs that the selection list shall be in operation for a
period of two years or till the new selection list is prepared. She has
submitted that the GR has referred to prior Government decision
dated 4th May 2022 to that effect. She has submitted that this GR
ought to be made applicable to the selection list which is the subject
matter of the present Petition, and had been issued on 20th February
2024 for a period of one year.
25. Ms. Karale has also relied upon the letter dated 23rd
December 2025 addressed by the Undersecretary, Government of
Maharashtra to the Health Service Commissioner, Mumbai extending
the selection list for a further period till 16th February 2026, though
having expired on 16th November 2025 due to non absorption of the
candidates. She has submitted that it has been a consistent stand of
the Respondent No. 1 -State that in the event, there is non absorption
of the candidate in the said post, the period of the selection list is to
WP-16020-25.doc
be extended.
26. Ms. Karale has accordingly submitted that the Petitioner
ought to be absorbed in the said post by extending the period of the
selection list which expired one year from 20th February 2024.
27. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 2-Corporation has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Public Service
Commission, Ajmer Vs. Yati Jain & Ors.1. He has submitted that the
Supreme Court has held that even a candidate figuring in the select /
merit list has no indefeasible right of appointment. Such candidate
can claim only as much as the governing rules relating to recruitment
enable or permit, more particularly when the life of a waiting /
reserve list is limited. The Supreme Court had considered in that case
that the Petitioners did not invoke the writ jurisdiction within the six
months' time period during which the reserve list would have been
alive and effective. The Writ Petitions had been presented after expiry
of such period and accordingly, although the Supreme Court
expressed sympathies with the Petitioners, the Supreme Court held
1 Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2026 with companion matters Jt.dtd.15.01.2026
WP-16020-25.doc
that the law being what it is, the Petitioners cannot be appointed on
any of the posts for which they competed.
28. Mr. Sakhadeo has submitted that in the present case also
the Petition has been filed only on 19th November 2025 i.e. after the
expiry of the period for which the selection list was alive and
effective. The selection list dated 20th February 2024 was alive for a
period of one year from 20th February 2024. He has submitted that
in view of the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, the
Petitioner has no indefeasible right of appointment, although figuring
in the selection list. He has accordingly, submitted that the Writ
Petition lacks merit and ought to be dismissed.
29. Mr. Khochare, the learned Counsel for the Respondent
No. 1 has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court
(Nagpur Bench) in Vishnupant s/o Narayanrao Kashid & ors. Vs. The
State of Maharashtra2. He has submitted that in the said decision, it
was held that any new law introduced is presumed to be prospective
in nature unless expressly stated to be retrospective with date in past
from which statute shall apply. It was further held that the GR was
WP-16020-25.doc
issued on 12th December 2000 and there was no express provision
made to make it applicable retrospectively.
30. Mr. Khochare has submitted that the Petitioner in the
present case has relied upon GR dated 2nd December 2025, which
has expressly made the selection list operational for the two years or
till a new list is prepared. The GR operates prospectively as there is
no express provision therein to make it applicable retrospectively.
31. Mr. Khochare has submitted that the selection list, which
is the subject matter of the present case had expired one year from
20th February 2024 and the Petitioner had applied after expiry of the
selection list for absorption in the said post and hence, the
application cannot be considered by the Respondents.
32. Having considered the submissions, I find much merit in
the submissions of the Respondents. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan
Public Service Commission, Ajmer (supra) has held in paragraph 108
as under :-
"108. The line of judicial precedents noticed above suggest
WP-16020-25.doc
that even a candidate figuring in the select / merit
list has no indefeasible right of appointment. Viewed
from that stand point, we repeat, a candidate
figuring in the waiting list cannot claim a better right
than those who find place in the select / merit list.
He / she, therefore, can claim only as much as the
governing rules relating to recruitment enable or
permit, more particularly when the life of a waiting /
reserve list is limited."
33. In the present case, the Petitioner was figuring in the
waiting list. It has been held by the Supreme Court, that a candidate
even figuring in the select / merit list has no indefeasible right of
appointment. He can claim only as much as the governing rules
relating to recruitment enable or permit, more particularly when the
life of a waiting / reserve list is limited. In the present case, the
selection list was in operation from 20th February 2024 for a period
of one year and expired prior to the decision having been taken by
the Respondents to disqualify the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal, who
had been chosen for the said post. The Petitioner's right to claim
absorption only arose after disqualification of the said Anil Shivsingh
Jarwal, who had been selected upon the successful candidate having
voluntarily resigned and the post having become vacant. Prior to
WP-16020-25.doc
selection, the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal was placed above the
Petitioner in the waiting list. Thus, the case of the Petitioner for
absorption in the said post could not have been considered in view of
the life of the select list having expired.
34. The GR dated 2nd December 2025, which relies upon the
Government decision taken on 4th May 2022, provides that the
validity of the selection list shall be two years or till the coming out
of a new selection list, applies prospectively. It has been held in
Vishnupant s/o Narayanrao Kashid & ors. (supra) that any new law
introduced is presumed to be prospective in nature unless there is
express provision to make it applicable retrospectively. The GR dated
2nd December 2025 relied upon by the Petitioner has no such
express provision to make it apply retrospectively.
35. The Petitioner has applied for post with the Nagpur
Municipal Corporation. Reliance has been placed upon the pre-
condition for appointment to the post and one such pre-condition is
that there should be no criminal case(s) registered against the
Applicant. The Petitioner has also applied with the Directorate of
Medical Education and Research, Mumbai, and the office of Charity
WP-16020-25.doc
Commissioner, Maharashtra State which have the same pre-condition
as the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. He has submitted that the
Petitioner has in placing reliance upon the said pre-condition
contended that the Respondents could have rejected the said Anil
Shivsingh Jarwal at the outset for not meeting the pre-condition for
appointment. Although there is merit in this contention, in view of
the Respondents having disqualified the said Anil Shivsingh Jarwal
after the lapse of the selection list and the Writ Petition having been
filed thereafter, the Petitioner cannot seek the mandamus of the
nature issued by the Single Judges as held in Rajasthan Public
Service Commission, Ajmer (supra).
36. Further, the Petitioner having applied to the Nagpur
Municipal Corporation and the Directorate of Medical Education and
Research, Mumbai, as well as the Office of the Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State will suffer no prejudice in the dismissal of the
present Petition. In any event, the Petitioner can always re-appear for
the examination and apply for the post with the Respondent No. 2 -
Corporation upon the post becoming available.
37. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present Petition,
WP-16020-25.doc
which seeks absorption of the Petitioner in the post of Civil
Engineering Assistant, considering that the period of the selection /
waiting list has lapsed.
38. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA J.]
