[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Atul Nagnath Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Thro. The ... on 18 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6658 OF 2026
Atul Nagnath Patil .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Maharashtra Public Service Commission .. Respondent
Mr. Abhishek Avachat with Mr. Indrajeet Jagdale, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. V.G.
Badgujar, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of
Maharashtra.
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 18TH MAY 2026
[ VACATION COURT ]
P.C. :
1. The Petition challenges the order dated 6 th April 2026 passed by
the Maharashtra Public Service Commission ("MPSC"), whereby the
Petitioner came to be debarred from selection to the post of "Police Sub-
Inspector - Non-Gazetted, Group-B Limited Departmental (Mains)
Examination-2023", as well as the common judgment and order dated
8th May 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai ("the Tribunal"), affirming the said order of debarment.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner appeared for the Mains
23-WP-6658-2026.doc Dixit
Examination for the post of Police Sub-Inspector on 29th December
2024. Upon scrutiny of the CCTV footage of the examination centre, the
MPSC noticed that the Petitioner had allegedly indulged in misconduct
during the course of the examination. Consequently, a show cause notice
dated 3rd June 2025 came to be issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner
submitted his reply. After considering the material on record, including
the explanation furnished by the Petitioner, the MPSC, by an order dated
9th September 2025, debarred the Petitioner from the said post.
Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing
Original Application no.1158 of 2025. By a common judgment and order
dated 15th October 2025, the Tribunal partly allowed the Original
Applications and set aside the impugned notices and orders on
procedural grounds, while reserving liberty to the MPSC to initiate fresh
proceedings. The operative portion of the said order reads thus:-
"53. All the Original Applications are partly allowed. The impugned
notices and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
54. The MPSC may initiate fresh action. However, ensuring that the
applicants' right to seek selection through the LDCE is not made
to suffer adversely by taking ahead the recruitment process, but
without the decision in the matter of the inquiries, if any, to be
undertaken against them."
3. Pursuant thereto, the MPSC issued a fresh show cause notice dated
27th November 2025 and also afforded an opportunity to the Petitioner to
23-WP-6658-2026.doc Dixit
view the CCTV footage depicting the malpractice committed during the
examination conducted on 29th December 2024 between 11:55 a.m. and
11:57 a.m. After considering the entire material on record, including the
CCTV footage and the response of the Petitioner, the MPSC, by its order
dated 6th April 2026, held the Petitioner ineligible for appointment to the
post of Police Sub-Inspector. This order was challenged by the Petitioner
before the Tribunal by filing Original Application no.329 of 2026. In the
meantime, the MPSC declared the results and published the General
Merit List of candidates who had successfully qualified in the Mains
Examination. By a reasoned judgment and order dated 8 th May 2026, the
Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application.
4. Mr. Avachat, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner was merely called to view the CCTV footage and was
not supplied an independent copy or analysis of the same. He submits
that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the MPSC is
arbitrary and without considering the defence of the Petitioner. The
CCTV footage does not conclusively establish any malpractices and
hence the order ought to be quashed.
5. Mr. Avachat, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits
that though the Petitioner was permitted to view the CCTV footage, no
23-WP-6658-2026.doc Dixit
independent copy thereof or any analysis/report pertaining to the same
was furnished to him. It is contended that both the impugned order
passed by the MPSC and the judgment of the Tribunal are arbitrary and
the punishment is disproportionate to the event. According to the learned
counsel, the CCTV footage does not conclusively establish any act of
malpractice or cheating and the impugned orders warrant interference.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Solunke, learned Additional Government
Pleader, along with Mr. Badgujar, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the State and the MPSC, opposed the prayer for interim
relief. It is submitted that the impugned orders are well-reasoned and do
not suffer from any perversity warranting interference in writ
jurisdiction. It is further submitted that adequate opportunity was granted
to the Petitioner in the fresh proceedings and no prejudice has been
caused to the Petitioner.
7. We have perused the impugned order of debarment passed by the
MPSC as well as the judgment rendered by the Tribunal. In our
considered view, both the Tribunal has assigned detailed and cogent
reasons while arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioner had indulged
in misconduct during the examination. The findings are based upon
appreciation of the CCTV footage and other contemporaneous material
23-WP-6658-2026.doc Dixit
on record. Once the competent authority, upon appreciation of the
evidence, arrives at a finding of misconduct in the context of a public
examination, the scope of judicial review is limited. A candidate found
indulging in malpractice during an examination cannot claim, as a matter
of right, equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also
well settled, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnanand v.
Director of Consolidation1, that a writ Court does not sit as an appellate
authority to re-appreciate or reassess factual findings recorded by the
competent authority unless such authority has either exceeded its
jurisdiction or acted perversely. No such case is made out in the present
matter. We may also note that the General Merit List has already been
published and the candidates who have successfully qualified pursuant
thereto are not parties before this Court. Grant of any interim relief at
this stage would not only disrupt the recruitment process already
undertaken, but would also seriously prejudice the rights of candidates
who have successfully cleared the examination. In the facts of the
present case, we are of the opinion that no case for grant of interim relief
is made out.
8. List the matter in due course.
SNEHA
ABHAY
DIXIT [ SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.]
DIXIT (2015) 1 SCC 553
23-WP-6658-2026.doc Dixit
