Bombay High Court
Krantikumar Kishanrao Kaulwar And Anr vs Mah. Public Service Commission (Mpsc) ... on 22 February, 2019
Author: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
Bench: R. M. Borde, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
Vishal P 1/5 907-wp-2331-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2331 OF 2019
Krantikumar Kishanrao Kaulwar and Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the Petitioners
Mrs. Madhubala Kajale, "B" Panel counsel, for the Respondents-State.
CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY 2019. P.C.: . The Petitioners claim to be the candidates belonging to
economically deprived sections from amongst the open category entitled to benefits provided under amended provision of Article 16 of the Constitution of India enforced with effect from 14 th January, 2019. The Petitioners contend that they are more than 35 years of age and in view of the decision taken by the State of Maharashtra on 12 th February, 2019 the benefits in respect of enhanced age limit available to backward class citizens having been made applicable to the category of economically weaker section, from amongst the open category, the ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:13:17 ::: Vishal P 2/5 907-wp-2331-2019.doc Petitioners are also entitle to participate in the process of selection for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate. The Petitioners are objecting to the stipulation in Rule 7.1.1 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 more specifically table "(C)", paragraph 3 (C) (i) prescribing the age limit of 35 years. The Petitioners contends that the policy decision taken by the State Government in observance of the Constitutional amendment provide for 10% reservation in favour of economically weaker sections from amongst open category is binding and the benefits in the nature of relaxation of age limit which are available to the backward class category candidates shall also have to be extended to the Petitioners. So far as the merits of the contentions raised by the Petitioners will be considered at the stage of hearing and final disposal of the Petition.
2. The Petitioners in the meanwhile seek issuance of direction to the Respondents- Maharashtra Public Service Commission to accept the application forms of the Petitioners. We are not inclined to grant the interim relief as claimed by the Petitioners for following reasons.
3. Article 234 of the Constitution of India deals with ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:13:17 ::: Vishal P 3/5 907-wp-2331-2019.doc recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial Service; Appointment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service of the State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. Article 235 provides that the control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of and the grant of leave to persons belonging to judicial service of the State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge shall be vested in High Court.
4. The rules framed regulating the recruitment to the Maharashtra Judicial Services do not provide for a stipulation in respect of the relaxation of age in case of economically weaker sections from amongst the open category. The rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 232 and 234 and the Proviso to Article 309 read with 235 of Constitution of India. Since the rules which are applicable do not provide for such relaxation as claimed by the Petitioners, at this stage of the proceeding, the interim relief does not deserve to be granted.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:13:17 :::
Vishal P 4/5 907-wp-2331-2019.doc
5. In the matter of Vishnu Dattarao Gite vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No. 8210 of 2016 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 14/16 th September, 2018 it is observed that the judicial service rules carved out a complete procedure and the recruitment is within the term and expression to be construed particularly in the backdrop of Article 233 to 235 of the Constitution of India. Thus in the matters which are covered by these Articles and the Judicial Service Rules, the rules and procedure framed either by M.P.S.C or in the instant matter, the decision of the State Government/Resolution cannot have a overriding effect.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we are not inclined to grant interim relief.
7. It is clarified that the opinion expressed by us is a prima facie opinion and it shall not have any bar on the final outcome of the Petition. The Petition will be dealt with on its own merit without being impeded by the reasons as recorded above.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:13:17 :::
Vishal P 5/5 907-wp-2331-2019.doc
8. Liberty to carry out the amendment. Amendment to be carried out within a week.
9. Stand over to 8th March, 2019.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:13:17 :::