WP1575_2026.DOCVidya Amin v. The State of Maharashtra

WP1575_2026.DOCVidya AminIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1575 OF 20261. Sumit Lahu Borkar2. Apurva Girish Bhale3. Vishal Madhukar Ghawale4. Nagesh Kisan Bhise5. Swapnil Ashok Khedekar6. Pune Mahanagarpalika Kamgar Union… PetitionersVs1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department2. Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune3. Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation… RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2164 OF 20241. Vikas Mohan Salunke2. Kamlakar Yuvraj Mane3. Vinod Hanumant Biramane4. Sangram Deshmukh5. Wasim Mujawar6. Swapnil Pandharinath Nimbalkar7. Chhaya Vinaykumar Suryawanshi8. Karan M. Konde9. Viswajeet Sanjay Tagunde10. Nilesh Kashinath Sable11. Ankush Vilas Gaikwad12. Rupesh Pandurang Alhat13. Vijay Rajendra Guthal14. Aditya Maruti Zarande … PetitionersVs1. The Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation2. The State of Maharashtra … RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2024Kunal Uttamrao Mate … PetitionerVs1. The Pune Municipal Corporation2. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal CorportionPage 1 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOC3. The State of Maharashtra4. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept.… RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 16449 OF 20241. Tushar Tukaram Raut2. Somnath Prakash Kasbe3. Kamesh Rohidas Kshirsagar4. Akash Tukaram Dhankavade5. Devidas Tukaram Kamble6. Mandar Nitin Choudhary… PetitionersVs1. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation2. The State of Maharashtra … RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8496 OF 20251. Kunal Uttamrao Mate2. Mayur Arun Mandhare3. Rupesh Arjun Mate4. Nitin Sandipan Lokhande5. Amol Dilip Pawar6. Dinesh Yashwant Tanksale7. Anil Sandipan Lokhande8. Shahu Sambhaji Pokale9. Rajesh Prabhakar Raskar10. Umesh Prakash Deokar11. Bhushan Dhanaji Mahamuni12. Chhaya Vijkumar Suryawanshi… PetitionersVs1. The Pune Municipal Corporation2. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation3. The State of Maharashtra4. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept.… RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 846 OF 20241. Mayur Arun Mandhare2. Rupesh Arjun Mate3. Sharad Balasaheb Kanaskar4. Nitin Sandipan Lokhande5. Amol Dilip Pawar6. Dinesh Yashwant Tanksale7. Anil Sandipan Lokhande8. Shahu Sambhaji Pokale Page 2 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOC9. Rajesh Prabhakar Raskar10. Umesh Prakash Deokar… PetitionersVs1. The Pune Municipal Corporation2. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation3. The State of Maharashtra4. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept.… RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1096 OF 2024Sanjay Shendge & Ors.… PetitionersVsThe Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. … Respondents_________ Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Atharva Date, Ms. Poonam Pal for thepetitioners in WP/846/2024, WP/2217/2024 and WP/8496/2025.Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Abhishek Roy and Ms. Sweta Shah for respondent-PMC in WP/2217/2024, WP/1575/2026 and WP/8496/2025.Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar i/b. Ranjana Todankar for the petitioners inWP/1575/2026 and WP/1096/2024.Ms. Manisha S. Jagtap for the respondent in WP/1096/2024.Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Smt. P.N. Diwan, AGP and Mr. A.R. Deolekar,AGP for the State.__________CORAM :G. S. KULKARNI &AARTI SATHE, JJ.RESERVED ON :30 JUNE, 2026.PRONOUNCED ON : 2 JULY, 2026.Judgment (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.)1. This is a batch of petitions which involves common issue of law and fact andhence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.We refer to the relevant facts from Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2026 – SumitLahu Borkar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 3.The petitioners are employees of the respondent-Pune MunicipalCorporation. They are holding Class IV posts. The primary grievance of thepetitioners as raised in these petitions is to the decision of the Pune MunicipalCorporation (PMC) to cancel the Select list for promotion to the posts of JuniorPage 3 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCEngineer (Civil), after the recruitment process had substantially progressed and priorto the issuance of appointment orders. 4.It is the petitioners case that the PMC Service Rules, 2014 provided 75%quota for direct recruitment and 25% quota for promotion to the post of JuniorEngineer (Civil). The educational qualifications for direct recruitment andpromotion were similar, namely, Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering. For directrecruitment, three years experience of engineering work was required, while forpromotion the experience required was of 5 years service in the PMC. These rulesprovided that promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) shall also be on thebasis of seniority-cum-merit. A copy of the PMC Service Rules dated 26 August,2014 are part of the record. 5.In regard to the selection process in question, the petitioners have contendedthat by Circular dated 29 January, 2021, the PMC invited applications from Class-IIIand Class-IV employees for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). Thesaid circular stated that Class-III and Class-IV employees who are appointed in theCorporation prior to 31 December, 2015 and who possessed the prescribedqualification and who had five years uninterrupted service with the PMC shall beeligible to apply for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). It iscontended that consequent to the said procedure being set into motion, by a furtherCircular dated 3 December, 2021, PMC published the draft Seniority List of eligibleemployees who had applied for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).Despite such publication, it is the petitioners’ case that PMC was not taking anysteps to complete the recruitment process for promotion to the post of JuniorPage 4 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCEngineer(Civil). Being so aggrieved, on 17 November, 2022, Pune MahanagarpalikaKamgar Union, a Trade Union of the employees of PMC, approached this Court byfiling Writ Petition No. 15966 of 2022 praying for a relief that the PMC may bedirected to make promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as per the Circulardated 29 January, 2021.6.Thereafter, the PMC issued a notice dated 31 May, 2023 publishing a furtherDraft Seniority List of 20 eligible candidates for being considered for promotion tothe post of Junior Engineer (Civil). On 17 June, 2023, PMC filed its reply affidavitin Writ Petition No. 15966 of 2022. In the said reply affidavit, in paragraph 13, acategorical statement was made on behalf of the PMC that the PMC is in theprocess of making promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Class-III) byfollowing the due process of law. 7.It so happened that before the process could attain finality, the StateGovernment by Government Resolution dated 14 December, 2023 amended thePMC Service Rules, 2014. By the said amendment dated 14 December, 2023, theGovernment changed the quota, the eligibility criteria and also the procedure, i.e.,the method and manner of selection for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer(Civil). By such Government Resolution, the quota for promotion to the post ofJunior Engineer (Civil) was reduced from 25% to 15%. Further, the educationalqualifications were also amended from “Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering” to“Full-Time Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering”. Also the amended rules asnotified in the Government Resolution changed the method and manner ofPage 5 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCselection from “seniority cum merit” to “determination of merit through anexamination”. 8.On the aforesaid backdrop, it is the petitioners’ case that they were fullyqualified for the appointment to the post of (Junior Engineer Class III) under theselection process as the petitioners have passed the diploma in Civil Engineering(Part-time) from the Government Polytechnic, Pune, which is recognized by the AllIndia Council for Technical Education (AICTE), to which the Maharashtra StateBoard of Technical Education (MSBTE) has granted equivalence to part-timediploma in Civil Engineering run by the Government Polytechnic, Pune with thediploma in Civil Engineering Course offered by MSBTE and hence under the 2014Rules being applicable to the petitioners selection, the petitioners ought to havebeen granted an appointment order. 9.However, in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 14 December,2023 amending the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 2014, the PMCissued a Circular dated 20 December, 2023 thereby announced a writtenexamination for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by promotion to beheld on 28 January, 2024. 10.The petitioners have contended that in view of the change in the Rules forpromotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), this Court disposed of WritPetition No. 15966 of 2022 by an order dated 11 January, 2024 keeping open allcontentions. Also the employees who were adversely affected by the GovernmentResolution dated 14 December, 2023, approached this Court by filing Writ PetitionPage 6 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCNo. 1096 of 2024 assailing the said Government Resolution and seeking the reliefsthat the promotion process which was initiated by PMC by Circular dated 29January, 2021 be completed by applying the unamended PMC Service Rules, 2014.11.In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioners contend that it is a settledprinciple of law that the eligibility criteria and the method and manner of selectioncannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced. This moreparticularly relying on the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the SupremeCourt in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.1. Itis contended by the petitioner that after the promotion process in question hadcommenced, the PMC could not have reduced the quota of promotion and therebyreduce the number of posts available for promotion. Also after the promotionprocess had commenced and was on the verge of completion, the PMC could nothave changed the eligibility criteria from “Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering” to“Full-Time Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering”, as also the PMC could not havechanged the method and manner of selection from “seniority cum merit” to “meritdetermined through an examination”, for the reason that the selection on the basis ofseniority cum merit does not require comparative assessment of merit.12.The PMC , however, by the impugned order dated 11 June, 2025 cancelledthe promotion process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as initiated by Circulardated 29 January, 2021, in respect of which even the draft Select list was publishedon 3 December, 2021 and thereafter on 31 May, 2023. The only reason as set out inthe impugned order to cancel the promotional / selection process was to enable the1 (2025) 2 SCC 1Page 7 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCPMC to carry out recruitment in accordance with the amended rules as notified inGovernment Resolution dated 14 December, 2023 (supra), i.e., to change thequota , the eligibility criteria and the method and manner of promotion to the postof Junior Engineer (Civil). It is the petitioners’ case that the impugned cancellationof the promotion exercised vide order dated 11 June, 2025 is patently illegal andviolative of the petitioners right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofIndia.13.The petitioners have also contended that the PMC, prior to the amendmentto the Pune Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 2014, has issued an advertisementdated 20 July, 2022 inter alia to carry out direct recruitment in 75% quota to thepost of Junior Engineer (Civil), so as to have appointments to 135 posts of JuniorEngineer (Civil). In pursuance of the said advertisement, the selection process wasundertaken and by an order dated 30 December, 2022, the Corporation madeappointments and filled up 135 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). Insofar as thepromotional exercise in regard to 25% of posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) was kept ina limbo although the process had commenced on 29 January, 2021 and finallyaborted by the impugned order dated 11 June, 2025.14.It is the petitioners’ case, that in fact, again an advertisement dated 9 January,2024 was issued for filling up another 113 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) by directrecruitment. A corrigendum dated 12 August, 2025 was issued to the advertisementdated 9 January, 2024 whereby the said posts to be filled up were increased from 113to 169 and accordingly a revised advertisement dated 1 October, 2025 was issued forenhancing the time period for making applications for the post of Junior EngineerPage 8 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOC(Civil). Also a public notice dated 17 January, 2026 was issued announcing that thewritten examination for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)would be held on 25 January, 2026. 15.The petitioners have accordingly contended that on one hand the PMC didnot carry out the promotion process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) pursuantto the Circular dated 29 January, 2021to fill up 25% of the posts, however, on theother hand, with substantial haste the PMC filled up 135 posts of Junior Engineer(Civil) by direct recruitment and again issued advertisement dated 1 October, 2025for filling up additional 169 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) by direct recruitmentthereby bringing about a consequence that such posts may not at all be available forfilling up by promotion. 16.It is also the petitioners contention that there is a common seniority list fordirect recruits to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), hence if the PMC carries outonly direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (civil) and does not fill up thepromotional quota, the promotees would be rendered junior to the direct recruitsand hence the action on the part of PMC in not filling up 25% posts by undertakingthe promotional exercise which was initiated vide Circular dated 29 January, 2021, ishighly arbitrary and illegal apart from the fact that it is opposed to the settledprinciples of law as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak &Ors. (supra) that once the selection process has commenced, the rules cannot bechanged to the prejudice of the selected candidates. 17.Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel has also placed on record informationPage 9 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCobtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein thedepartment had taken a legal opinion from the Law Officers of the Pune MunicipalCorporation as to whether a decision can be taken to cancel the selection processwhich was on the verge of completion, in which the legal opinion as placed on recordof the Municipal Corporation was to the effect that such decision ought not be takenconsidering the principles of service jurisprudence for the reason that once theselection process had commenced, it was not acceptable that the terms andconditions of eligibility for appointment be changed. Thus, Mr. Anturkar’ssubmission is that it is not the case that PMC was not guided properly on theposition in law when such information was placed on record before the MunicipalCommissioner on 11 June, 2025. He, however, submits that there is no reason,whatsoever much less acceptable, placed on record by the PMC, as to why theimpugned decision is taken. This apart from the fact, according to Mr. Anturkar,looked from any angle, the impugned decision dated 11 June, 2025 cannot stand thetest of law.18.It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present petitionspraying for the following substantive reliefs:“(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated11.06.2025, (Exhibit-M issued by the Corporation whereby theCorporation has cancelled the promotion process for the post of JuniorEngineer (Civil) initiated by Circular dated 29.01.2021;(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that theGovernment Resolution dated 14.12.2023, is not applicable to thepromotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) initiated by Circulardated 29.01.2021;(c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus,or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orderor direction for the from restraining Corporation making appointmentsPage 10 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCto the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) by direct recruitment pursuant tothe Advertisement dated 09.01.2024 read with revised Advertisementdated 01.10.2025, till promotion process pursuant to Circular dated29.01.2021 is completed;(d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus,or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orderor direction directing the Corporation to complete the process ofpromotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) initiated by Circulardated 29.01.2021 by applying the quota, eligibility and method andmanner of promotion prescribed under the un-amended Pune MunicipalCorporation Service Rules, 2014.”19.On behalf of the Municipal Corporation, reply affidavit has been filed by Mr.Vijaykumar Thorat, Deputy Municipal Commissioner opposing the reliefs as prayedfor in these petitions. The reply affidavit is a common affidavit in all these petitions.In the reply affidavit, it is not disputed that the petitioners are employees of thePMC working on different posts such as Sanitary Inspector/allied cadres and areaspiring for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Class III). Theaffidavit sets out the comparative chart showing difference between the 2014 rulesand fresh rules as notified under Government Resolution dated 14 December, 2023,which are now sought to be applied. However, what is significant to be noted is thatin paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit, the Municipal Corporation has categoricallyconceded that the process of appointment was almost 99% completed prior to theamendment of the Service Rules. It is stated that however the fact remains that nofinal promotion orders were issued and the vacancies continued to remain vacant. Itis contended that once the vacancies were not filled, the governing rule at the time ofconsideration applies and hence the applicable rule would be the amended ServiceRules brought into force by Government Resolution dated 14 December, 2023. Insupporting such contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court inPage 11 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCState of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.2 to contend that thevacancies occurring prior to amendment must be filled under old rules, no longerreflects the correct position in law. It is also contended that thus the PMC had takena valid decision to apply the Service Rules of 2023 and the said policy decisioncannot be challenged by the petitioners considering the settled principles of law. Analysis20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.At the outset, we note some of the admitted facts. The selection process wasinitiated by the PMC vide Circular dated 29 January, 2021. It is not in dispute thatthe petitioners, who were employees of PMC, were eligible to participate in theselection procedure. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time, the ServiceRules, which were invoked and applied for the selection in question, were the PMCService Rules 2014, which categorically provided for 75% quota for directrecruitment and 25% quota for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer(Civil).There is no dispute in regard to the educational qualification for direct recruitmentand promotion to be similar, namely, Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering. Also,there is no dispute in regard to the criteria being followed, namely, that thepromotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Further, it is not in dispute that on 3 December, 2021, PMC published adraft seniority list of eligible employees for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer(Civil) in which the names of the petitioners were included. It is also not in disputethat PMC thereafter proceeded to notify a further list of 20 eligible candidates on 312 (2023) 3 SCC 773Page 12 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCMay, 2023 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). PMC has also notdisputed that insofar as 75% posts are concerned, all steps are taken as noted by usherein to fill up 135 and 113 posts respectively.21.The aforesaid admitted facts clearly indicate that the PMC had wielded twostandards/yardsticks in its approach to fill up 75% posts by direct recruitment tohastily make such appointments, whereas insofar as 25% promotional post of its ownemployees were concerned, the same was kept in a limbo for a substantial period,i.e., from the commencement of the said process on 29 January, 2021 till the entireprocess which was 99% complete, was cancelled almost after four years on 11 June,2025. We find from the reply affidavit that there is not a whisper of justification inregard to such delay and/or PMC not completing the promotional process for thesaid 25% posts. It is significant to note from the impugned order dated 11 June,2025, as also supported by reply affidavit in paragraph 13, as noted by ushereinabove, that the only reason to cancel the promotional selection which hadalmost attained finality, was on the ground that the new rules are brought into forceon 14 December, 2023 as notified under the Government Resolution. If in thenormal course, once under the promotional process qua the petitioners hadcommenced on 29 January, 2021, it was certainly a legitimate expectation of thepetitioners that same would be taken to its logical conclusion under the extant Rules(i.e. the 2014 Rules) and more particularly when on 3 December, 2021, a draftseniority list of eligible employees for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer(Civil) was notified and a further draft seniority list of 20 eligible candidates wasnotified on 31 May, 2023. At such point of time, it can never have been aPage 13 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCcontemplation that much later to such finality to be achieved to the selectionprocess, sometime in December, 2023, new rules would be notified. Thus, there wasno basis whatsoever for the PMC not to complete the promotional exercise withinsuch legitimate period which was commenced as far back in 2021.22.In our opinion, things do not stop at this, inasmuch as almost for a substantialperiod of 18 months after the notification of new rules, the PMC instead ofcompleting the selection process on the basis of extant rules, namely, PMC ServiceRules, 2014, merely on a purported reason of notification of new rules (2023 Rules),the impugned decision dated 11 June, 2025 was taken to cancel the selectionprocess.23.In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, there is much substance in thecontention of the petitioner that there was a legitimate expectation on the part of thepetitioners that the selection process which had commenced on 29 January, 2021with notification of two seniority lists of employees / petitioners who would begranted promotion, would be taken to its logical conclusion and promotional orderwould be issued. It was also a legitimate expectation of the petitioners that the PMCService Rules, 2014 would be applied and that such completion of the selectionexercise, would not be governed by any new rules which, in any case, at the relevanttime were not in existence. 24.In such context, the petitioners have rightly placed reliance on the decision ofthe Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (supra)Page 14 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCto contend that the issue being canvassed by the petitioner in the presentproceedings would stand squarely covered by the said decision of the SupremeCourt. In such case, the reference before the Constitution Bench of the SupremeCourt was in pursuance of the order passed by the three-Judge Bench whileaccepting the salutary principle that once the recruitment process commences, theState or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as theprescription of eligibility criteria is concerned. The referral Bench wonderedwhether that should apply to the procedure for selection. While doubting thecorrectness of the decision of Supreme Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of AndhraPradesh3 for not having noticed an earlier decision in State of Harayana vs. SubashChander Marwaha4 the proceedings were placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justiceof India for constituting a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on theissue. The Constitution Bench held that the law is well settled that aftercommencement of the recruitment process, the eligibility criteria is not to be alteredbecause candidates even if eligible under the altered criteria might not apply by thelast date under the belief that they are not eligible as per the advertised criteria. Itwas held that such alteration/change, therefore, deprives a person of the guarantee ofequal opportunity in matters of public employment provided by Article 16 of theConstitution. In considering the question, the Court delved on the issues of -i) whenthe recruitment process commences and comes to an end, (ii) basis of the doctrinethat “rules of the game” must not be changed during the course of the game, orafter the game is played; (iii) whether the said doctrine applies with equal strictness3 (2008) 3 SCC 5124 (1974) 3 SCC 220Page 15 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCqua method or procedure for selection as it does qua eligibility criteria and (iv)whether appointment could be denied by change in the eligibility criteria after thegame is played. It is in such context, considering the decision in K. Manjusree(supra) and State of Harayana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) and referring tothe observations as made by the Court in the case of Sivanandan C.T. vs. High Courtof Kerala5 in which the Constitution Bench held that for a public authority tofrustrate a claim of legitimate expectation, it must objectively demonstrate by placingrelevant material before the Court that its decision was in the public interest, it washeld that this standard is consistent with the principles of good administration whichrequire that State actions must be held to scrupulous standards to prevent misuse ofpublic power and ensure fairness to citizens. The Constitution Bench also held thatthe doctrine of legitimate expectation lays emphasis on predictability andconsistency in decision making which is a facet of non-arbitrariness, when the Courtobserved that the underlying basis for the application of the doctrine of legitimateexpectation has expanded and evolved to include the principles of goodadministration. It was also held that the principles of good administration requirethat the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency,transparency and predictability to avoid being regarded as arbitrary and thereforeviolative of Article 14. Thus, taking a review of the legal position as reflected inseveral decisions, the Constitution Bench reached to the following conclusions inTej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (supra), which in our opinion, is squarely applicable inthe facts of the present case:5 (2024) 3 SCC 799Page 16 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOC “65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of theadvertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at thecommencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midwaythrough the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or theadvertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even ifsuch change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, thechange would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of theConstitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lays down good law and is not inconflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha. Subash ChanderMarwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereasK. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The twocases therefore deal with altogether different issues;65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriateprocedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end providedthe procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitraryand has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruitingbody both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rulesare 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 fillup the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentalitycannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone ofconsideration in the select list.(emphasis supplied) 25.It is thus clear from what has been held by the Constitution Bench that theeligibility criteria in the present case which was prevalent at the time ofcommencement of selection process on 29 January, 2021 could not have beenchanged midway through the recruitment process unless the said rules so permitted,and merely because new rules which were prospectively issued would not makethem applicable to the selection process in question which was almost at theverge of completion. Thus as held in paragraph 65.4 of the decision of thePage 17 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCConstitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (supra) the extant rules that isPMC 2014 rules as applied in notifying the seniority list for promotion dated 3December, 2021 and 31 May, 2023 were required to be followed and theappointment / promotion to fill up 25% posts, by the in-service candidates namelyof the petitioners ought to have been taken to the logical conclusion. Such processin no manner has been contended to be not transparent and not in accordance withthe extant rules, even by the PMC. Thus, the 2014 rules have been observed inbreach by the PMC. As held by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak &Ors. (supra), the extant statutory rules (2014 Rules) in force were binding on thePMC both in terms of procedure and eligibility. Thus, there was no warrant for thePMC to change the rules midway through the recruitment process on the eligibilitycriteria being applied under the 2023 Rules, more particularly when admittedly thevacancies existed. It was hence arbitrary for the PMC not to appoint the petitionerswhen they were placed in the selection list.26.We may also observe that on behalf of PMC, reliance is placed on the decisionof the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. (supra). Inthis decision, the Supreme Court was considering a case where directions were issuedby the High Court to consider the case of the writ petitioners/respondent nos. 1 and3 to the said proceedings, for promotion under the rules that existed when thevacancies arose and not as per the subsequently amended Rules. Such directionswere issued by the High Court on the basis of the decision of Supreme Court in Y.V.Rangaiah vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao6. The question posed before the Supreme Court was6 (1983) 3 SCC 284Page 18 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCwhether appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment ofthe Rules would be governed by the old Rules or the new Rules. It is in suchcontext, the Supreme Court took a review of about 15 decisions that havedistinguished Rangaiah’s case to hold that the Court had consistently carved outexceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah (supra). The followingobservations have been made by the Supreme Court having a direct bearing on theproposition formulated by Rangaiah, as set out in paragraphs 82, 83, 84, 85 and85.1 of the said decision, which read thus:“82. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah woulddemonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to thebroad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, thathave a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under:82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must benecessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when theyarose, Rangaiah case must be understood in the context of the rules involvedtherein.82.2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to beconsidered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the “rule in force”as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered forpromotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.82.3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not tofill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. Theemployee does not acquire any vested right to being considered forpromotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policydecision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for theGovernment to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event ofrestructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. Theonly requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fairand reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14.82.4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because postswere created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up theposts immediately.82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to considerappointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the Statecannot be directed to consider the cases.83. The above-referred observations made in the fifteen decisions that havedistinguished Rangaiah case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated thereinis substantially watered-down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiahhold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies mustPage 19 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCnecessarily be filled on the basis of law that existed on the date when they arose.This only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case.84. The decision in Deepak Agarwal is a complete departure from the principle inRangaiah inasmuch as the Court has held that a candidate has a right to beconsidered in the light of the existing rule. That is the rule in force on the date theconsideration takes place. This enunciation is followed in many subsequentdecisions including that of Union of India v. Krishna Kumar. In fact, in KrishnaKumar Court held that there is only a “right to be considered for promotion inaccordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration forpromotion takes place”.85. The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah case must beseen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that thereis no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily befilled on the basis of rules which existed on the date on which they arose, compelsus to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled. However, asthere is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedentand this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as we haveindicated hereinabove. For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore, necessary for us tohold:85.1. The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that, “the vacancieswhich occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the oldRules and not by the amended Rules”, does not reflect the correctproposition of law governing services under the Union and the States underPart XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled.”27.Considering the aforesaid observations of the Supreme court in State ofHimachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. (supra), we wonder as to how in the facts ofthe present case the law as laid down in the said case would become applicable to thefacts of the present case. The decision in fact supports the case of the petitioners,this, moreover, when the present case as observed by us in the foregoing paragraphsstands squarely covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Courtin Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (supra).28.In the light of the above discussion, we have no manner of doubt that thepresent petitions needs to succeed. We, accordingly, allow these petitions in terms ofthe following order:Page 20 of 2130 June 2026 WP1575_2026.DOCO R D E R (i)The impugned order dated 11 June, 2025 passed bythe Pune Municipal Corporation cancelling the promotionprocess for the post of Junior Engineer (civil) initiated underCircular dated 29 January, 2021 is quashed and set aside;(ii)It is declared that the promotional process in questioninitiated under Circular dated 29 January, 2021 shall begoverned by the PMC Service Rules, 2014 in regard to fillingup of 25% promotional posts of in-service candidates qua theapplicability of the eligibility criteria/qualifications, asavailable under such extant rules;(iii)Consequent to the above, the PMC is directed toconclude the process of appointment/promotion to the postof Junior Engineer (Civil) under the selection processinitiated for 25% of the in-service candidates vide Circulardated 29 January, 2021 under which the Seniority lists dated3 December, 2021 and 31 May, 2023 were notified, and takethe same to the logical conclusion by following furtherprocedure and by issuance of appointment orders with theseniority of the relevant date to be conferred on thepromoted candidates. Let this exercise be completed withina period of three weeks from today.29.Writ Petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.)(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 21 of 2130 June 2026