The Apex Court in, GAJANAN BABULAL BANSODE & ORS v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. observed that it was well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.
Facts
An exam was conducted for the post of Police Sub Inspector by Maharashtra Public Service Commission. Govt. notified 828 vacancies- 642 general and 186 reserved. A notification was released in 2019 that the cabinet had taken the decision to accommodate 636 additional candidates. Deputy Secretary of the MPSC wrote to the govt that as per Article 320 of the Constitution, the MPSC has the power to appoint candidates to posts. The list of 636 additional was notified by the Government on its official website, had been done without consulting the MPSC. This resolution is under challenge before the Administrative Tribunal. An interim 'status quo' order passed by the Tribunal was later vacated by it. The Bombay High Court rejected the Writ Petition, and the prayer to maintain status quo with respect to the 636 additional candidates who were directed to be appointed. The HC issued a direction to the State to send the additional candidates for the training of 9 months during the pendency of proceedings.
Contention
It was contended by the MPSC that Rule 4 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 provides a quota of 25% for promotion through the Local Departmental Examination and the additional recruitment would disrupt the system.
Observation
The following observations were made by the SC:-
The Apex Court observed that rule 5 of the rules state that if in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of service required, the ratio prescribed for appointment by promotion, on the basis of Limited Departmental Examination or nomination, may be relaxed with the prior consultation of the Commission. The Government would have to then prove to the tribunal as to why it was necessary. The same was pending. The court further observed that “it was well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.”
The Court stated that the direction ought not to have been passed in the Writ Petition before Bombay HC.
The civil appeal was allowed and the decision of recruitment remain stayed during the pendency of proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
The court directed the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench to decide the pending appeals within a period of six months. The Tribunal, the court said will ensure that the additional 636 candidates are given notice of the pending O.A. through the State, to enable them to appear and participate in the proceedings.
Case Details
Civil Appeal 104 of 2021
Coram- J. L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. INDU MALHOTRA and J. VINEET SARAN
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
