Bhaidas Rahanjya Vasave v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:19402-DB 932-WP-14527-23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14527 OF 2023 Bhaidas Rahanjya Vasave ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra and Others ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S.K. Chavan, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.R. Kale, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.1to 4 Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for respondent no.5 .... CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ DATE : 09th JULY, 2025 PER COURT : 1. 2. Heard. This petition takes exception to the order dated 27th February, 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad (‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 835 of 2018. The order impugned herein reads thus :- “(A) The selection and appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Police Patil of village Umarda (Pesa), Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule in pursuance to the advertisement No.1/2018 dated 14.08.2018 vide impugned order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure A-9) is hereby quashed and set aside. (B) The respondent authorities are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the applicant for the post of 1 / 5 932-WP-14527-23.odt Police Patil of village Umarda (Pesa), Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule within a period of two months from the date of this order.” 3. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 14th August, 2018, the petitioner and Respondent No.5 and some others applied for the post of Police Patil of the village Umarda (Pesa), Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. On completion of the recruitment process, the petitioner herein was declared successful and even given appointment. He took the charge of the post of Police Patil and continued as such for about three years. Respondent No.5, who was in the frey, realised something amiss and made a complaint to the District Collector and then approached the Tribunal. He was successful in the proceeding before the Tribunal. The petitioner herein remained absent in the said proceeding. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner secured 55 marks in the written test, whereas Respondent No.5 secured 57 marks, while the third one viz. Aakash Vasave got 54 marks. These three were called for interview. However, the third one, Aakash Vasave, remained absent. 5. When as per the advertisement, oral test was meant for twenty marks and nothing was disclosed in the advertisement about bifurcation of marks of interview, by sub-dividing the marks into educational qualification 2 / 5 and other activities of the candidates, interviews were held. For ready reference the marks allotted to both, the petitioner and Respondent No.5, in 932-WP-14527-23.odt the interview are given below :- v- dz- mesnokjkps uko ys[kh ijhz{kk vklu dz- tUe rkjh[k inoh izek.ki= IknohO;qR rj inoh izek.ki= ckjkoh mRrh.kZ izek.ki=@ led{k infodk izek.ki= MSCIT / lax.kd vgrkZ @ Vadys[k u izek.ki= NCC izek.ki= NSS/ MCC/ LdkmV xkbZM izek.ki= O;DrheR o laokn dkS’kY; eqyk[krh lkBh feGkysys ,dw.k xq.k ys[kh ijh{ksr feGkysys xq.k ys[kh ijh{ksr o eqyk[krh r feGkysys ,dw.k xq.k ftYgkLr j @ vkarj fo|kihB@ jkT; @ ns’k Lrjkojh y [ksGkckc r# brj Li/ksZrhy izkfo.; izek.k i= 1 SUNIL KALSING PAWARA 2 BHAIDAS REHANJY A VASAVE 6523280 6/5/ 1979 6523293 1/6/ 1988 03 xq.k 04 xq.k 03 xq.k 02 xq.k 02 xq.k 02 xq.k 02 xq.k 02 xq.k 20 xq.k 80 xq.k 100 xq.k 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 05 57 62 03 04 03 02 00 00 00 00 12 55 67 6. Close reading of the aforesaid chart would indicate that the selection committee, in fact, interviewed both of them, carrying only two marks, wherein the petitioner is shown to have secured zero marks while
Legal Reasoning
Respondent No.5 got two marks. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the questions put to the petitioner in interview were simply pertained to his educational qualification. The aforesaid chart would indicate that 20 marks reserved for the interview were sub-divided into eight more categories. When this was not disclosed in the advertisement and the interview was supposed to be for 20 marks, other criteria such as educational qualification or legal representatives of Ex-Police Patil were to be considered at the tiebreaker i.e. in case of the candidates securing equal marks. 3 / 5 932-WP-14527-23.odt 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 would submit that the petitioner and the authorities concerned were hand in gloves. Respondent No.5, in fact, secured more marks in written test. He secured two marks in the interview as against zero marks secured by the petitioner. He meant to say that this respondent was really meritorious. He also submits that Respondent No.5 secured marks in personality and communication skill test. 8. In our considered view, the allocation or sub-division of 20 marks reserved for oral interview, ought not to have been done without informing the aspirants, in the advertisement. The advertisement itself indicates that educational qualification was to be considered as a tiebreaker, whereas in the present case, under the head of ‘Oral Interview’, marks have been allotted to the petitioner and Respondent No.5 for their educational qualification. As such, the entire interview process was absolutely illegal and does not stand scrutiny of even reasonableness. The same is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Tribunal was somewhat right in its conclusion, but it should not have given Respondent No.5 the post of Police Patil on the strength of two marks secured in the interview. Since the entire interview process was unreasonable and against the conditions declared in the advertisement, the same is liable to be set aside. We, therefore, find merit in the writ petition. The same, therefore, deserves to be allowed in terms of the following order :- 4 / 5 932-WP-14527-23.odt
Decision
ORDER (I) Writ petition is allowed. (II) Impugned order dated 27th February, 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 835 of 2018, is hereby set aside. (III) Respondent No.5 – Sunil Kalsing Pawara shall quit the post of Police Patil within a period of five weeks from the date of this order. (IV) The interview committee / appointing authority i.e. Respondent No.4 shall conduct fresh interview carrying 20 marks and adhere to the conditions of the advertisement i.e. consider educational qualification and other activities of the candidates only in case the candidates secure equal marks. (V) The interview of both the candidates shall be video- graphed and written record of the questions put to both of them and answers thereto shall also be maintained. These directions are necessitated because the petitioner has not been put any question to test his general intelligence. (VI) The process of interview shall be concluded within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of this order. ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD 5 / 5