[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Minakshi W/O Sidharth Dongre And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 27 March, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:4997-DB
954.WP6482.24.odt 1/40
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6482 OF 2024
1. Amisha Vinod Sheware
Age : 25 yrs. Occupation : Student
At - Plot No. 52, New Kailash Nagar
Manewada Road, Nagpur - 440027
2. Karishma Bhaiyalal Narad,
Age: 24 yrs. Occupation : Student
At - Plot No. 18, Lane No. 11,
Vishwakarma Nagar, Parwati
Nagar, Medical Square, Nagpur-
440027
3. Hiriya Manharan Verma,
Age: 25 yrs. Occupation: Student
At - 100, Punapur Road,
Bhawani Nagar, Pardi
Nagpur - 440035
4. Mayuri Ajabrao Dhoke,
Age: 24 yrs. Occupation: Student
At - Plot No. 435, Old Ajni, Near
F/C. Godown, Wardha Road,
Nagpur, 440015
5. Sonu Raju Dangare,
Age: 24 yrs. Occupation: Student
At - Savitabai Fule Nagar, Gautam
Buddha Marg, Galli No. 2
Manewada, Nagpur - 440027
6. Isha Vinod Rangari,
Age: 24 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Gangabai Ghat Road, Manipura
Chowk, Bhuteshwar Nagar,
Nagpur - 440002
954.WP6482.24.odt 2/40
7. Mansi Raju Wanjari,
Age: 26 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Plot No. 79, Near Bawankar Ata
Chakki Shiv Nagar, Nagpur-
440009
8. Komal Shivaji Ingole,
Age: 30 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Behind Besa Power House, 139
Gajanan Nager Narsala Road Besa,
Nagpur- 440034
9. Trupti Santosh Darne,
Age: 24 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Plot No. 161 Chandmari Nagar,
Bhandewadi Road, Near Shitala
Mata Mandir, Vathoda, Nagpur -
440035
10. Dhanashree Bandu Nannaware,
Age: 24 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Mahesh Nagar, D.G. Tukum Waard-1,
Chandrapur, Nagpur- 442401
11. Sneha Raju Kamble,
Age: 30 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Plot No. 127, House No. 6611/A,
Manewada Road, Near NIT Garden,
Omkar Nagar, Nagpur - 440027
12. Ruchika Deepak Sayare,
Age: 25 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Amravati Road, Behind
Vrundawan Colony, Old Futala,
Nagpur- 440033
13. Jyotsana Bhimrao Meshram,
Age: 32 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Sawarkar Att Chakki Jawal
1745/a/46, Bapuji Ane Nagar, Dr.
Ambedkar Marg S.O. Nagpur - 440017
954.WP6482.24.odt 3/40
14. Sakshi Bhimrao Dongare,
Age: 23 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Near Angulimal Buddha Vihar,
Ghar No. 3725 Motha Indore Nara
Road, Jaripatka, Nagpur- 440072
15. Rupali Ramesh Bagade,
Age: 35 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Behind Milind Buddha Vihar,
Rambag, Nagpur- 440003
16. Divya Dulichand Patre,
Age: 26 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Asti Road, MU PO Dhanla, Mauda,
Nagpur- 440072
17. Shimply Dushant Dongre,
Age: 24 yrs. Occupation: Student
At- Gowardhan Nagar, Tumsar,
Nagpur- 440072
... PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department
of Public Health, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400032.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department
of Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
3. District Selection Committee,
Through its Chairman and
Collector Nagpur. Having office at
Collectors Office, Nagpur, Dist-
Nagpur.
954.WP6482.24.odt 4/40
4. Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Nagpur,
having office at Zilla Parishad
Office, Nagpur, District - Nagpur.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3576 OF 2025
1. Pooja D/o Ankush Jadhav
Aged: 25, Occ.: Private Service,
R/o At- Warzadi, Post- Takli
Kadim, Tah-Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati
Sambhaji Nagar)-431002.
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Department of Public
Health,
Address: 10th Floor, Complex
Building Premises of GT
Hospital, Mumbai 32
2. State of Maharashtra
through its Principal
Secretary, Department of
Rural Development,
Address: 7th Floor,
Construction Building, 25,
Marzban Path, Fort, Mumbai
- 400 001
3. Chairman, District
Selection Committee, and
Collector, Amravati
954.WP6482.24.odt 5/40
Address: Collector office
Compound, Amravati Camp,
Amravati, Maharashtra - 444 602.
4. District Selection
Committee, through its
Member and Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Amravati
Address: Collector office
Compound, Amravati Camp,
Amravati, Maharashtra - 444 602
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3627 OF 2025
1. Veena D/o Manikrao
Narayankar
Age 38 yrs, Occ.Housewife,
R/o Karbala base, Ravivar
Peth, Tah-Ambejogai,
Dist-Beed- 431517
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary
Department of Public
Health,
Address: 10th Floor, Complex
Building Premises of GT
Hospital, Mumbai 32
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Rural
Development,
Address: 7th Floor,
Construction Building, 25,
954.WP6482.24.odt 6/40
Marzban Path, Fort, Mumbai
- 400 001.
3. District Selection
Committee, through its
Chairman and Collector,
Chandrapur.
Address: Railway Station
Road, near District Court,
Chauhan Colony, Chandrapur,
Maharashtra - 442401.
4. District Selection
Committee, through its
Member and Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Chandrapur
Address: Near Priyadarshani
Square, Near Jatpura Gate,
Chandrapur - 442401.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3626 OF 2025
1. Akansha D/o Sunil Patil
Age 25 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o Gautam Buddha Ward,
Nana Chowk, Kumbhare
Nagar, Dist. Gondia 441601
2. Mahima D/o Lalit Choure
Age 25 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o Ambedkar Ward, Ward
No. 2, Khatiya, Gondia
... PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary
Department of Public
954.WP6482.24.odt 7/40
Health,
Address: 10th Floor, Complex
Building Premises of GT
Hospital, Mumbai- 32.
2. State of Maharashtra
through its Principal
Secretary, Department of
Rural Development,
Address: 7th Floor,
Construction Building, 25,
Marzban Path, Fort, Mumbai
- 400 001.
3. Chairman, District Selection
Committee, and District
Collector, Gondia
Address: Amgaon Road,
Administrative Building, Zilla
Parishad, Gondia -441601
4. District Selection
Committee, through its
Member and Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Gondia.
Address: Amgaon Road,
Administrative Building, Zilla
Parishad, Gondia -441601.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5620 OF 2024
1. Kiran Ganesh Waghmare,
Aged about 26 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Mochipuri, Surji Anjangaon,
District Amravati.
2. Shital Dipak Kale, Aged about 35
years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Darav Nagar,
Murtizapur, District Akola
954.WP6482.24.odt 8/40
3. Vrushali Vasantrao Chavhan,
Aged about 26 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Post Punoti, Tq. Barshitakli,
District Akola
4. Mayuri Shamrao Warthe, Aged
about 26 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Post
Punoti, Tq. Barshitakali, District
Akola
5. Shubhangi Bhaskar Wankhede,
Aged about 25 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. At Katkhed, Tq. Barshitakali,
District Akola
6. Priti Rameshwar Ingale,
Aged about 29 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. At Post Chikhalgaon, District
Akola.
7. Swati Vasantrao Shende,
Aged about 27 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Nimboli, Telhara, Akola
District Akola
8. Jayashri Pralhad Wastkar,
Aged about 29 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Akola, District
Akola.
9. Samiksha Padmakar Khandae,
Aged about 26 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Kadaki, Akola, District Akola.
10. Sushma Ashish Sonone,
Aged about 26 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Mathi Umari, Akola , Dist: Akola
11. Bhagyashri Premchand Jadhav,
Aged about 29 years, Occ: Nil,
954.WP6482.24.odt 9/40
R/o. Patur, Akola, District Akola
12. Pooja Manohar Gurjar, Aged
about 32 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.
Sanguld B., Akola, District
Akola
... PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
Department of Public Health, 10th
Floor, Complex Building
Premises of GT Hospital,
Mumbai-32.
2. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Rural
development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
3. District Selection Committee,
through its Chairman and
Collector, Akola
4. District Selection Committee,
through its Member and Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad
Akola.
5. Zilla Parishad Akola, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Akola.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3581 OF 2025
1. Sakshi D/o Vijay Tayde
Age 25 yrs, Occ. Private,
R/o Nimba, Tah -Balapur
Dist -Akola, 444311.
954.WP6482.24.odt 10/40
2. Dipali D/o Pradip Shelke
Age 30 yrs, Occ. Private,
R/o At Post Sirpur
Tah & Dist- Buldhana,
443001.
... PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
Department of Public
Health,
Address: 10th Floor, Complex
Building Premises of GT
Hospital, Mumbai 32.
2. State of Maharashtra
through its Principal
Secretary, Department of
Rural Development,
Address: 7th Floor,
Construction Building, 25,
Marzban Path, Fort, Mumbai
- 400 001.
3. District Selection
Committee, through its
Chairman and Collector,
Buldhana
Address: Collector's Office
Campus, State Bank Chowk
Road, Chaitanyawadi,
Buldhana, Maharashtra -
443001
4. District Selection
Committee, through its
Member and Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Buldhana.
Address: Near Jaistamb
954.WP6482.24.odt 11/40
Chowk, Chaitanyawadi,
Buldhana - 443001.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6481 OF 2024
1. Prajakta Vilas Meshram,
Age: 24 yrs.Occupation: Students
At- Khedepar Road, Sawari,
Bhadara - 441804
2. Riya Umesh Patil,
Age: 25 yrs, Occupation: Students
R/o - Sant Tukdoji Ward Hinganghat - 442301
3. Prachi Prabhudas Rangari
Age:27 yrs,Occupation: Students
At- Plot No. 40, Nara Road, Near
Water tank, Nirmal Tank, Nirmal
Colony, Jaripatka, Nagpur
440014.
4. Ketki Shashank Bhujade,
Age: 27 yrs, Occupation: Students
At- Near Ram Mandir, VTC:
Pindkepar, Sakoli- 441802
5. Priyanka Rajkumar Sangole,
Age: 28 yrs, Occupation: Students
At- C/O Bolde Karad, Ward No. 1,
Arjuni/Mor, Bolde, Gondhiya - 441701
6. Pragati Pathapal Meshram,
Age:26 yrs.Occupation: Students
R/o - Dhiwaru Kanhikar Gram Panchayat Chowk,
Pohara, Dist- Bhandara 441809
7. Devki Vishweshwar Kumare,
Age 27 yrs, Occupation: Students
At-Post- , Churchura Mal, Churchura
Gadchiroli - 442605
954.WP6482.24.odt 12/40
8. Divya Bisram Bisen,
Age : 24 yrs. Occupation: Students
At- Tekari, Po- Kalimati Ta, Amgoan
Gondiya- 441902
9. Shital Tejkant Bhuldhane ,
R/o - At Bhimanagar (Isasani), CRPF Gate-2,
near Lata Mangeshkar Hospital,
Hingna, Nagpur
Age: 28 yrs. Occupation: Students
10. Priya Subhanrao Rahangdale
Age: 24 yrs. Occupation: Students
Badi galli, Matruchya Bhawan, Fulchur,
VTC Fulchur, Gondiya- 441601
11. Payal Yadav Khobragade,
Age: 24 yrs,Occupation: Students
At- C/O, Khodshivani, Sadak Arjuni,
Gondiya - 441801
12. Devyani Anandrao Badole,
Age: 25 yrs, Occupation: Students
At- Palasgav, Bhandara- 441809
13. Pragati Santosh Nimbarte,
Age: 24 yrs, Occupation: Students
At- Nehru Ward At- Po- Pahela
Bhandara- 441924
14. Varsha Narendrakumar Chowre,
Age: 26 yrs, Occupation: Students
R/o- At Bagholi, Post - kafi, Dist - Gondia - 441614
15. Khushbu Sanjay Meshram
Age: 22 yrs, Occupation: Students
Add: Chichtola, Sadakarjuni Gondia,
441802.
... PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
954.WP6482.24.odt 13/40
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department of
Public Health, Mantralaya, Mumbai -
400032.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department of
Rural Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400032.
3. District Selection Committee, Through
its Chairman and Collector Gondia.
Having office at Collectors Office,
Gondia, Dist- Gondia.
4. Zilla Parishad, Gondia, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Gondia, having office
at Zilla Parishad Office, Gondia, District
- Gondia.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3574 OF 2025
1. Minakshi W/o Sidharth
Dongre
Age 27 yrs, Occ: Housewife,
R/o, At Po. Rangari Sudan
Mahuli Mohalla, Balaji Chouwk
Nawegaon Bandh, Ta. Arjuni
Morgaon, Dist. Gondia 441702
2. Shital W/o Namdeo
Sonwane
Age 27 yrs, Occ. Housewife,
R/o Nehru Nagar, Tumsar,
Ta. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara
441912
3. Shweta D/o Rajkumar
Barayawane
954.WP6482.24.odt 14/40
Age 24 yrs, Occ: Student,
R/o, At Po. Mitewani. Tah.
Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara
441912
4. Giteshwari D/o Rajkumar
Barayawane
Age 25 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o At Po. Mitewani. Tah.
Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara
441912
5. Radha W/o Dhanraj
Nipane
Age 39 yrs, Occ. Housewife
R/o Plot No. 85/8, Type II,
Jawaharnagar, Tah. & Dist.
Bhandara 441906
6. Ritu D/o Manoj Hatwar
Age 25 Yrs, Occ. Student
R/o Bhandara, Sant Kabir
Ward, Bhandara 441904
7. Achal D/o Dhanaanjay
Halmare
Age 23 Yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o Dighori, Ta Lakhani,
Dist. Bhandara 441809.
8. Priyanka D/o Suresh
Wanjari
Age 30 Yrs, Occ. Private
R/o At Tekepar, Post
Monegaon
Tah & Dist Bhandara.
441809.
... PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
954.WP6482.24.odt 15/40
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Department of Public
Health,
Address: 10th Floor, Complex
Building Premises of GT
Hospital, Mumbai 32
2. State of Maharashtra
through its Principal
Secretary, Department of
Rural Development,
Address: 7th Floor,
Construction Building, 25,
Marzban Path, Fort, Mumbai
- 400 001
3. Chairman, District
Selection Committee, and
Collector, Bhandara
Address: National Highway 6,
Police Campus, Bhandara,
Maharashtra - 441904
4. District Selection
Committee, through its
Member and Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Bhandara
Address: National Highway 6,
Police Campus, Bhandara,
Maharashtra - 441904
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. A. Walde, counsel for petitioner(s) in respective petitions.
Mr. S. S. Dhengale, counsel for petitioner(s) in W.P. 5620/24.
Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, counsel for petitioner(s) appeared thr. V.C. & Mr.
A. S. Chakotkar, counsel for petitioner(s) in 6481 & 6482/24.
Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3/State.
Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar h/f Mr. B. N. Jaipurkar, counsel for respondent no. 4
in W.P. 3576/25, 3627/25.
954.WP6482.24.odt 16/40
Mr. A. M. Dixit, counsel for respondent no. 4 in WP3626/25.
Mr. U. J. Deshpande, counsel for respondent no. 5 in 5620/24.
Mr. A.Y. Kapgate, counsel for respondent no. 4 (thr. V.C.) in 6481/24.
Mr. G.G. Mishra, counsel for respondent no. 4 in 6482/24.
Mr. S. R. Dheple & Mr. V. M. Kulsange, counsel for the intervenor in
6482/24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13th MARCH, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th MARCH, 2026.
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. All these writ petitions raise identical challenges and
therefore are being decided by this common judgment. As far as
Writ Petition No. 6482 of 2024 is concerned, (which we have
treated as the lead petition vide order dated 21.01.2026), it prays
for quashing and setting aside the communication dated
30.09.2024. It further prays for a writ, thereby directing the
respondent no. 4 herein to correct the list published on 07.10.2024,
as also declaring and including the names of the petitioners as
eligible and qualified candidates and issuing appointment orders to
the petitioners.
3. The facts can be narrated in a short compass are as under:-
(a) The respondent no. 4, which is the Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,
published an Advertisement No. 01 of 2023 concerning the direct
recruitment process for Group C for various posts coming under the
said group, and applications were invited for those posts. The
applications, which were to be filed online, included 308 posts for
Nurse/ Health Worker (Female). The requisite qualification for the
said posts is a qualified nurse and who are registered with the
Maharashtra Nursing Council or Vidarbha Nursing Council.
(b) It is the contention of the petitioners that some of the
petitioners are qualified as General and Nursing Midwife (herein
after referred to as 'GNM') and the remaining hold qualification as
B.Sc. (Nursing). But all these petitioners are registered with the
Maharashtra Nursing Council.
(c) Pursuant to the said advertisement, all the petitioners applied
for the said post by submitting their respective applications by
online mode. It is the contention of the petitioners that the online
portal specifically gave options in the qualification, either the
"Qualified Midwifes" or "Qualified Auxiliary Nurse Midwives".
(d) After submission of the said forms, the same were accepted
and exam was conducted on 16.06.2024 in which the petitioners
appeared. The petitioners were declared qualified in the result
which was declared on 17.07.2024. On the same day, a list was
published by the respondent no. 4 according to which 364
candidates were declared as qualified and the names of all the
petitioners were included.
(e) It is further contended that all the candidates including the
petitioners were called for verification of their respective documents
from 7th to 10th of August, 2024.
(f) The documents of all the petitioners were verified and a list
was published on the website of the respondent no. 4 wherein the
candidates having qualification of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (herein
after referred to as 'ANM') were declared qualified and names of 16
ANM candidates was kept in the waiting list. In the said list, the
name of the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates
having qualification of GNM and B.Sc. (nursing) were not included
though all these candidates cleared the exams and were declared as
qualified.
(g) Being aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the
respondent no. 4 on 09.10.2024 to know the reasons of their
exclusion from the list. Upon enquiry, the petitioners were given a
copy of letter dated 30.09.2024 which was addressed to the
respondent no. 4 by the respondent no. 2. According to this letter,
the syllabus of ANM, GNM and B.Sc. (nursing) and their durations
are different. It further states that though GNM and B.Sc. (nursing)
are having higher qualification than ANM, the candidates having
ANM qualification are only qualified for the said post.
(h) Thereafter, the petitioners again approached the respondent
no. 4 vide their communication dated 11.10.2024 requesting the
said respondent not to issue appointment orders till the result of the
writ petitions which are filed before this Court. It is in this backdrop
that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present
Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has filed an
affidavit-in-reply and strongly opposes the contentions. Respondent
no. 4 contends that persons like petitioners, who are holding the
qualifications of GNM or B.Sc. (Nursing), are eligible to be
appointed on the post of "Staff Nurse" and not on the post of
"Auxiliary Nurse Midwife".
5. He further points out that the post of ANM are appointed
under the Primary Health Centres under the Zilla Parishad and their
responsibility includes assisting patients with daily activities like
bathing, dressing and feeding, and for the said post the requisite
qualification is 2 years Diploma Course that focuses on preparing
nurses to work as Community Work Helpers.
6. It is further contended in the reply that GNM are appointed
under the hospitals run by the State Government as a Staff Nurse
and their services includes patient care, administering medications,
assisting doctors, and supporting maternal and child health. It is
therefore contended that under the Zilla Parishad, i.e., the
respondent no. 4, there is no post of Staff Nurse.
7. As far as the submission and acceptance of applications are
concerned, the respondent no. 4 submits that the said respondent
was not aware about the qualifications of the petitioners as the
applications were submitted online via , which has conducted the
recruitment drive. It was only at the time of verification of
documents that the answering respondent found that the petitioners
were not eligible to apply for the post of ANM. Thus, the answering
respondent prays for dismissal of the petition.
8. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective
parties, and with their able assistance also gone through the record
of the matter and the judgments relied upon by them.
9. The learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners' applications were accepted online in view of the specific
option which was given that whether the candidate falls under the
qualification GNM as also B.Sc. (nursing). It is, therefore, the
contention of the petitioners that if the respondents always wanted
candidates having qualification of ANM, the forms of the petitioners
and the similarly situated candidates ought not to have been
accepted. It is further contended that the contention of the
respondent that the candidates having the qualification of GNM and
B.Sc. (Nursing) are overqualified and therefore cannot be selected is
completely contrary to the settled canons of law. In this regard the
petitioners point out that the syllabus of ANM is covered in detail in
the courses of GNM as well as B.Sc. (Nursing), and further that the
course of ANM is 2 years, whereas the duration of the course of
GNM is 3 years and B.Sc. (Nursing) is for 4 years which speaks for
itself.
10. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the
respondents have completely misinterpreted the provisions of the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (recruitment) Rules,
1967. They point out that the advertisement is for the post of
"Health Worker (Female)" (Aarogya Paricharika) whereas the
respondents are applying the qualification of ANM. It is, therefore,
the contention of the petitioners that the entire action is totally
illegal.
11. Strongly opposing the grounds raised by the counsel for the
petitioners, the respondents, by taking us through the reply filed by
them, reiterate the contentions in the said reply and submit that
only because the names of the petitioners appeared in the qualified
candidates would not, ipso facto, give them a right to the said post.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent relies on a judgment
of Md. Firoz Mansuri and others vs. The State of Bihar and others of
the Hon'ble Apex Court arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12236 of
2025.
13. The intervenors who were permitted to intervene have also
advanced their submissions and supported the respondents. In
addition to this, they rely on the judgment of this Court at the
Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 13945 of 2025 to submit
that an identical controversy arose before the Aurangabad Bench,
and the coordinate bench of this Court, by taking overall view of the
matter, was pleased to dismiss the petition.
14. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned
counsels for the respective parties including the intervenors.
15. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to extract
some relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1966'). The said act was brought
on the statute book with an aim to unify and make better provision
in law regulating registration and training of nurses in the State of
Maharashtra and to provide for matters connected with the
purposes aforesaid. Section 2(k) defines "Nurse" as under.
"2(k) "Nurse" includes male nurse, auxiliary nurse,
public health nurse, midwife, auxiliary nurse-midwife and
health visitor;"
16. Thereafter, Section 17, which finds a place in chapter III
(Registration and Enlistment) of Act of 1966 and more particularly
sub-Section 3, is as under.
"(3)(a) Any person, who has undergone such courses of
training, has passed such examinations and fulfils such other
conditions as may be prescribed, or any person who possesses
any of the qualifications included in the Schedule to the
Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, shall, subject to any
conditions laid down by or under the said Act, at any time on
an application made in the prescribed form to the Registrar
and on payment of the prescribed fee and on presentation of
his degree, diploma or certificate, be entitled to have his name
entered in the Register :
Provided that, the name of an applicant who is
unable to present his degree, diploma or certificate may be
entered in the Register, if he satisfies the President that he
holds such degree, diploma or certificate but cannot for
sufficient cause present the same with his application.
(b) Such person shall specify in the application the
Region in which he desires to be registered and shall not be
entitled to be registered in more than one Region :
Provided that, if he fails to specify the Region in
which he should be registered, the Council shall have the
power to enter his name in the Region in which his address is
situated and if no address in the State is given in such Region
as the Council may, after considering all other particulars
submitted by the applicant, decide."
17. The State of Maharashtra has framed rules in this regard, i.e.,
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment)
Rules, 1967, the relevant clauses are as under:-3
"APPENDIX V: Rules laying down the qualifications of
candidates for and methods of appointment to the posts included in
the District Technical Service (Class III) (Health) and District
Service (Class III) (Subordinate Health)
Public Health Nurse (1) [Appointment shall be made
either by]-
[(a) promotion of suitable Nurse
Med-wives for for Health
Visitors) who possess the
certificate in Public Health
Nursing or B.Sc. degree in
nursing recognised by the
[Indian Nursing Council or];
[(b) nomination from amongst
candidates who-
(i) unless already in the service
of the Zilla Parishad are not
more than 40 years of age;
(ii) are qualified Nurses,
Midwives and are registered
with the Maharashtra Nursing,
Council or Vidarbha Nursing
Council or are eligible for such
registration; and
(iii) hold the certificate in Public
Health or B.Sc. degree in
nursing recognised by the Indian
Nursing Council).
(2) The ratio for appointment by
promotion and nomination shall
be 50:50
Auxiliary Nurse-Midwife Appointment shall be made by
nomination from amongst
candidates who-
(i) unless already in the service
of the Zilla Parishad are not
more than 40 years of age; and
(ii) are qualified Midwives or
qualified Auxiliary Nurse-
Midwives and are registered
with the Maharashtra Nursing
Council or Vidarbha Nursing
Council or are eligible for such
registration
18. Thereafter, relevant clauses of the Advertisement No. 01 of
2023, which is the subject matter, are as under:-
I) Clause 3.15 states that after a preliminary scrutiny of
the applications from the eligible candidates, permission would
be granted to appear in the examination. It, however, further
contemplates that only because the exam has been cleared by
the candidate would not ipso facto give him any right to
selection.
II) Clause 17.9 further reiterates the position that only
because an application is made online or there is eligibility, or
the candidate has appeared in the exam or his documents are
called for verification would not confer a right to the
concerned candidate. The employer/respondent Zilla Parishad
has also reserved its right to cancel the candidature of the
candidate at any stage.
III) Clause 17.21 further clears an ambiguity that if some
clauses in the advertisement in question are contrary to the
Government Resolution, in that case the Government
Resolution or the decision of the Government would be final.
IV) Clause 17.22 further contemplates that the entire
recruitment process would be in accordance with the
eligibility, the Rules, or the Government Resolutions to be
issued from time to time and can be changed in accordance
with the same.
19. It is, therefore, clear that only because the candidates like the
petitioners herein have submitted online applications, appeared for
the exam, and cleared the same, would not on its own vest them
with any right.
20. Furthermore, the contentious clause which falls for
consideration is found in Serial No. 4 of Clause No. 7, which is
reproduced as under:-
अ. पदाचे नाव शैक्षणिक अर्हता व अनुभव
क्र
4 आरोग्य परिचारिका ज्यांची अर्हता प्राप्त साह्यकारी प्रसाविका आणि
[आरोग्य सेवक (महिला)] महाराष्ट्र परिचर्या परिषदेमध्ये किंवा विदर्भ परिचर्या
परिषदेमध्ये नोंदणी झालेली असेल किंवा अशा
नोंदणीसाठी जे पात्र असतील.
21. In the conspectus of these facts, if the name of the post
advertised and the qualifications prescribed therein are perused, the
name is आरोग्य परिचारिका [आरोग्य सेवक (महिला)], but the qualification is
of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife as is clear from Clause 3(x) of appendix
V, appended to the said rules reproduced above. However, the post
advertised is under Clause 2 (v) of the said appendix. It is,
therefore, obvious that the prescribed qualification is of an ANM, i.
e., साह्यकारी प्रसाविका, but the name of the post is आरोग्य परिचारिका, i.e.
Public Health Nurse. Thus, the nomenclature of the post and the
qualification prescribed therein are ambiguous.
22. It is also pertinent to note that the advertisement specifically
mentions eligibility criteria in order to qualify for the said post. As
per the advertisement the candidates should possess a valid
registration certificate issued by Maharashtra Nursing Council or
Vidarbha Nursing Council, highlighting their registration as 'ANM'.
However, as can be seen from the annexed registration certificates
of the petitioners, they possess a certificate reflecting either as
'Nurse' or 'Midwife' or as 'Nurse and Midwife', but not as 'Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife' as mandated by the advertisement.
23. The impugned letter in this regard at this juncture assumes
significance. By way of the said letter, the State has made it clear
that ANM, GNM and B.Sc. (Nursing) all these three courses are
different, since their eligibility, duration, and curriculum are not
similar. The said letter also makes it clear, that even though the
qualification of GNM and B.Sc. (Nursing) are higher qualification,
they cannot perform the duties of ANM, and therefore ANM cannot
be eligibility for appointment of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife.
24. Furthermore, the fact which is not disputed is that, the Zilla
Parishad is not empowered to appoint Staff Nurse, which is the
domain of the State Government. It is, therefore, clear that what the
advertisement contemplated is the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife,
i.e., ANM only.
25. The learned counsels for the petitioners have placed reliance
on the judgments in the case of Chandra Shekhar Singh and others
Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2025) 9 SCC 740.
However, a careful perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court would reveal that the question which fell for consideration
was the definition of the term "degree". By elaborating the entire
case law on the subject and taking into consideration the factual
aspect of the matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since a
special reference to the Master's degree is made even in the rule in
question, it is only for those who have acquired their degree course
in the Chemistry subject(as mentioned in the rule). However, as far
as other subjects are concerned, a person having any degree, be it
graduation or post graduation, would be equally qualified for the
post in question.
26. The next judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is in the case of Dr. Rajendra Shankar Mahamuni vs.
Fergusson College and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom
3171. However, this judgment deals with the methodology to be
adopted in case of ambiguity in the Marathi version and the English
version of the Government Resolution in question. Even the Full
Bench judgment in Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth
Through Its Registrar Vs. Ganpat Maroti Sutare and others has not
answered the question referred to it. The said question was
regarding the applicability of either the old pension scheme or the
Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, whether the word " नियुक्ती" in
(appointment) as set out in the Government Resolution dated
31.10.2005 in the State language, Marathi, would be decisive or
whether the word "recruitment" (" भरती प्रक्रिया") appearing in the
English version should apply.
27. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash
Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, relied on by
the learned counsels for the petitioners, is reported in (2025) 2 SCC
1. The questions which fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Apex
Court are reproduced as under:-
"21. To effectively analyse and adjudicate upon the questions
referred, we would divide our discussion into following parts:
21.1. (a) When the recruitment process commences and
comes to an end;
21.2. (b) Basis of the doctrine that "rules of the game" must
not be changed during the course of the game, or after the
game is played;
21.3. (c) Whether the decision in K. Manjusree is at variance
with earlier precedents on the subject;
21.4. (d) Whether the above doctrine applies with equal
strictness qua method or procedure for selection as it does qua
eligibility criteria;
21.5. (e) Whether procedure for selection stipulated by Act or
Rules framed either under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution or a statute could be given a go-by;"
21.6. (f) Whether appointment could be denied by change in
the eligibility criteria after the game is played."
28. The answers to these questions are found in para 65 of the
judgment referred to supra, which are as under:-
"65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following
terms:
65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of
the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling
up of vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list,
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process
unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which
is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such
change is permissible under the extant Rules or the
advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the
test of non-arbitrariness;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lays down good law and is
not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha.
Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be
appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree deals with
the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore
deal with altogether different issues;
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may
devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment
process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is
transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a
rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the
recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to
appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide
reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if
vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot
arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of
consideration in the select list."
29. In the recent judgment of Md. Firoz Mansuri and others vs.
The State of Bihar and others (supra), the question was whether the
High Court erred in upholding the constitutional validity of the
Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by the Bihar
Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024). More particularly,
the question was whether candidates holding Bachelor or Master of
Pharmacy degrees, without possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy,
satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment
to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) under the said Rules.
30. After evaluating all the law on the subject, Hon'ble Apex
Court held that it is for the employer to determine and decide the
relevancy and suitability of qualifications. The power of judicial
review in matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative
competence, arbitrariness, or violation of Fundamental Rights, if
any. It was further held that the Courts cannot rewrite Service
Rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their
own assessment for that of the employer. The scope of judicial
review in matters of public employment does not extend to
questioning the State's wisdom or policy in prescribing the
minimum eligibility requirements for public posts. Qualifications are
prescribed keeping in view the needs and interests of an institution,
an industry or an establishment as the case may be.
31. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which
can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review.
Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded
as equivalent is a matter for the State as the recruiting authority to
determine. The assessment of the expediency, advisability, or utility
of such prescription of qualifications does not warrant intervention
of the Court unless the same is shown to be perverse.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court on these grounds held that the
decision of the State in making possession of a diploma an essential
qualification for appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary, and the
State has merely identified a narrower catchment of candidates it
considers more suitable for a particular purpose from within the
larger pool of registered pharmacists. Therefore, it went on to
dismiss the petition.
33. As stated in supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court sitting
at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 13945 of 2025, Priyanka Sidu
Nimse Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, by taking into
consideration an almost identical situation and referring to Zahoor
Ahmad Rathar v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404, has
recorded a finding that if any such rule is absent, it would not be
permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification
necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower
qualification. The prescription of qualifications for the post is a
matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled
to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no
part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the
ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a
qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of
the power of judicial review.
34. We are in respectful agreement with the view of the Hon'ble
Apex Court as found in the judgment of the coordinate Bench
referred supra. The coordinate Bench has also rightly referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan v. Lata Arun ((2002) 6 SCC 252) wherein the same
proposition was repeated with lucidity. It is, therefore, clear that
even if a qualification of a candidate appears to be higher, he
cannot claim eligibility unless the rules themselves recognize such
qualification as equivalent. Thus, time and again, the courts have
emphasized that recruitment rules must be strictly construed and
the courts cannot dilute the eligibility criteria on the ground of
perceived superiority of qualifications.
35. In fact, the same view was reiterated in Yogesh Kumar v.
Government of NCT of Delhi reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548. If the
factual averments in the petition are analyzed on the touchstone of
the settled law referred to supra, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsels for
the petitioners. Even though it is clear that there is some ambiguity
in the advertisement issued by the Zilla Parishad, that cannot ipso
facto cloth the petitioners with the right to be approved on for the
post of ANM.
36. As we have observed supra, the Zilla Parishad cannot and
could not have advertised the post of Staff Nurse, it is, therefore,
clear that the posts which were advertised were in fact ANM, for
which qualifications are mentioned supra.
37. The learned counsels for the petitioners had tried to
differentiate the said judgment by contending that the petitioners
are even otherwise qualified Midwives and therefore, even as per
eligibility of Clause 3(x), they are qualified. We are also not in
agreement with this contention for obvious reasons. Firstly, the
State of Maharashtra, who is the ultimate interpreter of the rule,
has made it unequivocally clear vide its letter dated 30.09.2024
regarding the same, the contents of which are reproduced supra. It
is, therefore, in that view of the matter, and in view of the fact that
it is the employer and the State of Maharashtra who is the final
arbiter to interpret the rules, the claim of the petitioners cannot be
entertained.
38. It is also pertinent to note that the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners has not, under any of the prayer clauses in the
present petition/s, laid a challenge to the concerned advertisement.
39. The petitions are, therefore, without merit and are
accordingly dismissed.
40. Rule accordingly stands discharged. No order as to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Shubham
