Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar Abhimanyu Wakade And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 April, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 493
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D. Kulkarni
1
WP-6368-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6368 OF 2019
1. Dnyaneshwar s/o Abhimanyu Wakade,
Age 27 yeas, Occu. Nil
R/o At post Mudgal, Taluka Pathari,
District Parbhani
2. Dattatraya s/o Shivajirao Gore,
Age 30 years, Occu. Nil
R/o Mahadev Nagar,
Shirur Anantpal,
Taluka Shirur Anantpal,
District Latur
3. Kiran s/o Ashok Patil,
Age 27 years, Occu. Nil
R/o At Post Shingave,
Taluka Chandwad,
District Nashik .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Industries, Energy and Labur
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2. The General Manager,
(HR-MPP) Corporate Office,
Maharashtra State,
Electricity Transmission Co.Ltd.,
"PRAKASHGANGA", C-19,
E-Block, Bandra (E),
Mumbai 51
3. The Chief Engineer,
EHV Project cum O & M Zone,
Aurangabad, Block No.201 & 205,
2nd Floor, MSETCL Administrative
Building, Near Harsool T-Point
Jalgaon road, Aurangabad .. Respondents
- WITH -
WRIT PETITION NO.6471 OF 2019
. Kailas s/o Manohar Gaikwad,
Age 32 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Gaikwad Niwas,
Opp. MSEB Office, Beed,
District Beed .. Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
2
WP-6368-2019
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Industries, Energy and Labur
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2. The General Manager,
(HR-MPP) Corporate Office,
Maharashtra State,
Electricity Transmission Co.Ltd.,
"PRAKASHGANGA", C-19,
E-Block, Bandra (E),
Mumbai 51
3. The Chief Engineer,
EHV Project cum O & M Zone,
Aurangabad, Block No.201 & 205,
2nd Floor, MSETCL Administrative
Building, Near Harsool T-Point
Jalgaon road, Aurangabad .. Respondents
Mr Amol B. Chalak, Advocate for petitioners
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1
Mr S.V. Adwant, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
ORDER RESERVED ON : 13th February 2020
FINAL ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 30th April 2020
FINAL ORDER (Per Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.)
1. The petitioners are invoking provisions of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and seeking directions against respondents no.2 and 3
to conclude the recruitment process initiated for the posts of Surveyor -
Grade-2 pursuant to the advertisement No.01/2017 dated 16.6.2017.
2. In Writ Petition No.6368 of 2019, petitioner no.1 belongs to open
category, whereas petitioner nos.2 and 3 belong to Other Backward Class
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
3
WP-6368-2019
category. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.6471 of 2019 belongs to NT (B)
category i.e. NT (B). According to the petitioners, the National Council for
Training in Vocational Trade (NCTVT), the Government Industrial Training
Institute has issued them certificate in Surveyor trade. They have also work
experience of more than two years as Surveyor. Respondents no.2 and 3 in
all zones of the Maharashtra, more particularly Nagpur, Amravati, Pune,
Karad, Nashik and Aurangabad had decided to fill up the vacancies of
Surveyor Grade-2. Accordingly, the Aurangabad zone had issued
advertisement No.07/2017 dated 16.6.2017 and invited applications for the
posts of Surveyor Grade-2 from the persons belonging to different category
including Other Backward Class category. The Aurangabad zone had
advertised total six posts of Surveyor Grade-2. It was specifically mentioned
in the advertisement that no oral interviews would be conducted and the
selection process would be exclusively by online examination basis.
3. The petitioners had applied for the posts of Surveyor Grade-2 from
their respective categories. They had appeared for online examination test
held on 20.8.2017. Respondent no.3 had published merit list as well as
provisional select list and called upon the petitioners for verification of
documents. The petitioners had appeared for documents verification and
furnished entire documents on 9.7.2018 and 20.8.2018. The names of the
petitioners out of Writ Petition No.6368 of 2019 appeared in the select list.
Petitioner no.1 was selected from open category. Petitioner no.2 was
selected against open category on the basis of merit and petitioner no.3 was
selected from Other Backward Class category.
4. One Mr Sarang Narayanappa Allamkhane came to be selected from
NT(B) category. He did not satisfy qualifying experience of two years, which
is mandatory for the post of Surveyor Grade-2. As such, respondent no.3
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
4
WP-6368-2019
cancelled the selection of Mr Sarang Allamkhane vide letter dated 3.9.2018.
Respondent no.3 called upon the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6471 of 2019,
for verification of documents vide letter dated 10.9.2018 from NT (B)
category since he was found next eligible. Respondent no.3 completed
process of verification of documents on 12.9.2018.
5. It is contended by the petitioners that Nagpur, Amravati, Pune, Karad
and Nashik zones have issued appointment orders in favour of the selected
candidates and now they are working on their posts. So far as Aurangabad
zone is concerned, respondent no.3 has issued appointment orders in favour
of two selected candidates namely Mr Saket Raghunath Gaikwad and Smt.
Pushpabai Gangadhar Janrao. The petitioners time and again requested the
respondents to conclude the selection process and issue their appointment
orders pursuant to their selection for the posts of Surveyor Grade-2.
6. According to the petitioners, they have been selected for the post of
Surveyor Grade-2 by following proper procedure. The petitioners came to
know that the respondents are about to scrap the wait list/select list.
According to the petitioners, there are vacancies of the post of Surveyor
Grade-2 in Aurangabad Zone, but respondents no.2 and 3 are not issuing
their appointment orders. According to the petitioners, the respondents
cannot act arbitrarily. The respondents cannot refuse to issue appointment
orders without unjustifiable reason. According to the petitioners, the act of
respondents is unfair and unjust. Therefore, petitioners are seeking
directions against respondents no.2 and 3 to conclude the recruitment
process initiated for the posts of Surveyor Grade-2 and consider to appoint
the petitioners on the posts of Surveyor Grade-2, since their names
appeared in the select list.
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
5
WP-6368-2019
7. By way of reply affidavit respondents no.2 and 3 have admitted that
they had issued advertisement No.01/2017 on 16.6.2017 to fill up the posts
of Surveyor Grade-2 (six posts) out of various categories and they have
completed online examination and issued select list. They have also
admitted that they have completed document verification process.
8. It is the main contention of respondents no.2 and 3 that as per the
MSETCL Employees Service Regulations, 2012, the validity of merit
list/select list/wait list is for a period of one year from the date of declaration
of results and as such, the provisional select list was valid upto 17.9.2018.
According to respondents no.2 and 3, the provisional select list declared on
18.9.2017 specifically mentions that in the event the provisionally selected
candidate does not satisfy the terms and conditions, as per the
advertisement, his candidature will be cancelled and it was imperative for the
provisionally selected candidate to qualify under each and every condition
mentioned in the advertisement dated 16.6.2017.
9. It is contended that out of six selected candidates, Mr Harishchandra
Santoba Salunke (NT-B) did not appear for documents verification. Three
candidates namely Mr Shivraj Chandrakant Chavan (Open Category), Mr
Saket Raghunath Gaikwad (ST Category), Smt.Pushpabai Gangadhar
Janrao (Open-WR category) were found eligible and respondent no.3 has
issued their appointment orders. Out of them, two candidates namely Mr
Saket Raghunath Gaikwad (ST category) and Smt.Pushpabai Gangadhar
Janrao (Open-WR category) have joined the services with the Company. Mr
Shivraj Chandrakant Chavan from open category did not join his services
with the Company even after giving three months' joining time. As per
Clause 6 of the notification dated 18.9.2017, the Company had to fill up the
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
6
WP-6368-2019
remaining vacancies to the extent of number of posts, continued the
documents verification process of the candidates from the reservoir of next
meritorious candidates. Accordingly, second merit list came to be published
by respondent no.3 on 29.8.2017 subject to verification of experience
certificates of the provisionally selected candidates, wherein the petitioners'
names appeared in the provisional select list for the first time.
10. The experience certificates were verified from the previous employers
of the candidates and during that exercise, Mr Sarang Allamkhane (NT-B),
Mr Pravin Mesre (NT-B), Mr Yogesh Suryawanshi (NT-B), Mr Bhaskar
Gawane (NT-B) and Mr Sachin Amazare (NT-B) were not found suitable as
they did not possess necessary work experience and as such, their
candidature came to be cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 6471 of 2019 was the next candidate from NT (B) category and he was
called for documents verification vide letter dated 10.9.2018 and documents
verification came to be completed on 12.9.2018. However, experience
certificate of petitioner Mr Kailas Manohar Gaikwad (W.P.No.6471 of 2019)
was not beyond doubt and respondent no.3 had taken decision to verify his
experience certificate from his previous employer. His previous employer
sent necessary information on 27.9.2018. In the meanwhile, validity to the
selection list came to be over and as such, the claim of the petitioner does
not survive. It is further contended that the process took a long time and as
such, respondent no.3 could not place the names of the petitioner before the
competent selection Committee as prescribed under Schedule 2 appended
to the MSETCL Employees' Service Regulations, 2012 within the validity
period of one year, for approval as per procedure laid down in MSETCL
Administrative Circular No.410 dated 7.7.2014 before issuing appointment
orders.
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
7
WP-6368-2019
11. According to the respondents, the petitioners have no vested right to
be appointed on the posts, for which their names appeared in the provisional
select list. According to the respondents, the appointments of following
three candidates on the posts of Surveyor Grade-2 came to be issued as per
the recommendation of the competent selection Committee:
1. Mr Saket Raghunath Gaikwad (ST)
2. Smt.Pushpabai Gangadhar Janrao (Open-WR)
3. Mr Shivraj Chandrakant Chavan (Open)
According to the respondents, the claim of the petitioners is untenable
in the eyes of law.
12. We have heard Mr Amol Chalak, learned Advocate for the petitioners,
Mr Karlekar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr Adwant, learned
Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 at length.
13. Mr Chalak, learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently argued
that the petitioners are successful candidates and their names appeared in
the select list. The exercise of documents verification has been conducted
and they possess requisite work experience. There was no reason for
respondents no. 2 and 3 to withhold the appointment orders of the
petitioners. Respondent no.3 had issued appointment orders of three
selected candidates and deliberately withheld the orders of petitioners in
spite of repeated requests. According to Mr Chalak, learned Advocate for
the petitioners, the act of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust and unfair. It
has caused injustice to the petitioners. The petitioners may not get any
employment in future in view of age bar. Mr Chalak has placed reliance on
the following stock of citations :
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
8
WP-6368-2019
1) Bishnu Biswas and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.,
reported in (2014) 5 SCC 774;
2) Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India and ors.,
reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 687;
3) R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India
reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230
14. Mr Adwant, learned Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 strenuously
argued that as per Maharashtra State Electricity Board Classification and
Recruitment Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Recruitment
Regulations, 1961" for brevity) the validity of merit list/select list/wait list is for
a period of one year from the date of declaration of results. In the present
case, the result was declared on 18.9.2017 and thus, the provisional select
list was valid upto 17.9.2018. Mr Adwant further submitted that since the
candidates had not filled correct information in the online application forms,
especially about experience, the respondents had to verify the authenticity of
their experience from their previous employers, which took a long time and in
the meanwhile, the validity period of the provisional list got over. There was
no arbitrariness on the part of respondents no.2 and 3 while issuing
appointment orders to three selected candidates. The respondents have
followed proper procedure while giving appointments to three candidates.
15. Mr Adwant, learned Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 submitted
that as per service jurisprudence, even though the petitioners' names
appeared in the provisional select list, they have no indefeasible right on the
said posts when validity period of provisional select is over.
16. Before touching to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to place on
record that there is no dispute that respondents no.2 and 3 had issued the
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
9
WP-6368-2019
advertisement for the posts of Surveyor Grade-2 out of six zones referred above
and it was online examination. The process of online examination came to be
completed. Names of the petitioners appeared in the provisional select list.
Respondents no.2 and 3 issued appointment letters to three selected
candidates viz. Mr Shivraj Chandrakant Chavan (Open), Mr Saket
Raghunath Gaikwad (ST) and Smt.Pushpabai Gangadhar Janrao (Open-
WR). It appears that as per MSETCL Circular and Rule 29 (a) of the
Recruitment Regulations 1961, the validity of merit list/select list/wait list is
for a period of one year. In the present case, the result was declared on
18.9.2017 and after having necessary calculations, the validity period of the
provisional select list was upto 17.9.2018.
17. The reply affidavit submitted by respondents no.2 and 3 nowhere speaks
that the petitioners were not having a requisite work experience for the post of
Surveyor - Grade-II. It is further undisputed position that the petitioners out of
Writ Petition No.6368 of 2019 were called for document verification and
accordingly, petitioners have appeared on 9.7.2018 and 20.8.2018 for
document verification and accordingly, respondent no.3 has completed the
process of verification of documents. After the exercise of verification of
documents, respondent no.3 has published a list of selected candidates on
29.8.2017 and the names of petitioners out of Writ Petition No.6368 of 2019
appeared in the select list at Serial Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner no.1 selected
from open category, petitioner no.2 though from Other Backward Class
category, selected against open category on the basis of merit and petitioner
no.3 selected from Other Backward Class category. Real problem cropped
up when respondents no.2 and 3 referred the work experience certificates of
the respective petitioners to their previous employers for confirmation
thereof. In meantime, the validity period of the select list seems to have
over.
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
10
WP-6368-2019
18. The reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 indicates
that respondent no.3 doubted work experience certificates submitted by the
petitioners. To get confirmation about the same, the Chief Engineer, EHV
Project cum O & M Zone, Aurangabad has made correspondence with
previous employer of petitioner (Writ Petition No.6471 of 2019) vide letter
dated 27.9.2018 thereby called upon clarification/confirmation about work
experience certificate. There is no record relating to petitioners in Writ
Petition No.6368 of 2019 as to when respondent no.3 has made
communication with their previous employer. The reply affidavit of
respondents no.2 and 3 is silent on that point. As such, the delay seems to
have been caused for getting confirmation of work experience certificate of
the concerned petitioners. It was not fault of the petitioners. The
communication seems to have been made by respondent no.3 with the
previous employer of the petitioner (W.P.No.6471 of 2019) in order to get
confirmation about his work experience and received that information on
27.9.2018 and validity of select list was upto 17.09.2018 and as a result,
delay seems to have been occurred for which petitioners cannot be made to
suffer.
19. Rule 29 (a) of the Recruitment Regulations, 1961 relates to
advertisement, recruitment and wait list of selected candidates. According to
Rule 29 (a) of the Recruitment Regulations, 1961 the selection committee
concerned may recommend names of suitable candidates selected after due
advertisement which are to be kept on the wait list for consideration against
posts reserved for direct recruitment and such list shall be deemed to be
valid for twelve months. It further provides that Technical Member, Accounts
Member, Member (Administration) and Technical Director concerned are
authorised to extend the validity of the wait list of the candidates selected by
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
11
WP-6368-2019
the various Selection Committees for the posts of their respective wings,
even if they are partly operated for a further period of one year, whenever
consider necessary. It further provides that such persons who are likely to
be absorbed in appropriate vacancies within a reasonable period may be
informed of their names having been kept on the wait list for being absorbed
in future vacancies.
20. Respondents no.2 and 3 even though clothed with such powers, went
on stating that validity period of wait list/select list of one year is over and
appointment orders cannot be issued. There was no hurdle before
respondents no.2 and 3 to exercise their powers vested with them as per
Rule 29 (a) of the Recruitment Regulations, 1961. Petitioners cannot be
blamed for expiring of validity period of wait list/select list, for inaction on the
part of respondents no.2 and 3 in view of Rule 29 (a) of the Recruitment
Regulations, 1961.
21. In case of S.S. Balu and anr., Vs. State of Kerala and ors. reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 479, it is held by Honourable Supreme Court that there is no
indefeasible right to a candidate included in rank list unless arbitrariness or
discrimination is established. Mr Adwant, learned Counsel for respondents
no.2 and 3 has placed his reliance on the judgment of Honourable Supreme
Court in case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Surendra
Kumar and ors., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 195, wherein it is held by the
Honourable Supreme Court that when period of wait list is expired, it would
not be proper to direct names of requisite number of candidates to be
recommended. However, the facts of the case in hand are very peculiar and
unique. Respondents no.2 and 3 had called the petitioners for document
verification and petitioners of Writ Petition No.6368 of 2019 were successful
and their names appeared in the select list published on 29.8.2017.
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
12
WP-6368-2019
Whereas, petitioner in Writ Petition No.6471 of 2019 was also informed
about his selection vide letter dated 10.9.2018 issued by respondents no.2
and 3. He was called for document verification on 12.9.2018 and that
exercise was completed. The validity period of select list published by
respondents no.2 and 3 seems to be over because respondents wanted to
check the veracity of the documents submitted by the petitioners from their
erstwhile employer. Respondents no.2 and 3 seem to have called upon
information from the previous employers of the petitioners by way of
correspondence in order to get confirmation about their work experience and
resultantly, validity period of the select list got over. Certainly, the petitioners
cannot be blamed for that.
22. Respondents no.2 and 3 are the public limited companies under the
control of the State Government. They are instrumentalities of the State.
They are required to be model litigants. They should follow their procedure
and regulations for recruitment. Their recruitment process should be
transparent. Respondents no.2 and 3 cannot raise their hands in the air by
stating that the validity period of the select list/wait list for one year is over
and they are unable to complete the process when the same is reached at
fag end. It is true that a candidate making an application for the post
pursuant to advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but
if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant
rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a
vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as
they exist on the date of advertisement and for that we place reliance on the
judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in case of N.T. Devin Katti and
ors., Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and ors., reported in
(1990) 3 SCC 157.
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
13
WP-6368-2019
23. In case of Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India and ors., reported in
1984 (Supp) SCC 687; it is held that once a person is declared successful
according to merit list of selected candidates, the appointing authority has
the responsibility to appoint him, even if the number of vacancies undergoes
a change after his name is included in the list of selected candidates.
24. In case of R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 Supp (2)
SCC 230, it is held by Honourable Supreme Court that although a person
whose name appears in the select list has no vested right for appointment to
that post for which he has been selected, the appointing authority cannot
ignore the select-panel or on its whims to decline the appointment. When a
person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy
which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then,
ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to
be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select-
panel.
25. In present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of
respondents no.2 and 3 to get extension to the select list/wait list. It is not
the case of respondents no.2 and 3 that there are no vacancies of Surveyor
Grade-II. The reply affidavit filed by respondents no.2 and 3 nowhere
indicates that there are no vacancies of Surveyor Grade-II. Obviously, there
is no reason for respondents no.2 and 3 to refuse to consider appointments
of the petitioners. Respondents no.2 and 3 cannot simply refuse to issue
appointment orders to the petitioners merely on the ground that validity
period of the select list is over. Respondents no.2 and 3 are empowered in
view of Rule 29 (a) of the Recruitment Regulations, 1961 and get extension
to the select list of the petitioners and consider to issue appointment orders
to the petitioners when there are vacancies of the post of Surveyor Grade-II.
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::
14
WP-6368-2019
26. The correspondence made by the petitioners with the respondents
no.1 to 3 clearly demonstrate their bona fides in order to get their
appointment orders. They have approached the Honourable Minister for
Energy and concerned top authorities of respondents no.2 and 3 from time to
time and requested to issue their appointment orders, but no response. The
respondents cannot take undue advantage of their long process, resultantly
invaliding the wait list.
27. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the view that the petitioners
need to be considered for appointment to the post of Surveyor Grade-II when
their names appeared in the select list. Consequently, we pass the following
order :
ORDER
(I) Respondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Surveyor Grade-II in view of Rule 29 (a) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Classification and Recruitment Regulations, 1961, if they are otherwise found eligible for the said post.
(II) With the above directions, Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) vvr ::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2020 03:42:50 :::