Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr.3
(d) Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Kisan Tukaram More.4
(e) Mukulika S. Jawalkar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.5

16. Mr. Anturkar the learned senior advocate appearing for some of the original applicants would oppose the petitions filed by the MPSC by submitting that MPSC is merely an advisory agency and, therefore, there is no cause for MPSC to challenge the order of the Tribunal. That the State Government, who is the recruiting agency is not aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal and that, therefore, there is no occasion for MPSC to file the present petitions. That, therefore, MPSC has no independent locus standi to challenge the order of the Tribunal in the absence of challenge being raised by the State Government.

27. MPSC is respondent in the petitions filed by the original applicants challenging acceptance of experience in private hospitals/clinics. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned counsel, represents MPSC in those petitions and he submits that MPSC acted on clarification issued by the State Government vide letter dated 1st October 2015 and that said clarification was rescinded by the State Government on 17th November 2016 only after finalization of selection. That therefore MPSC had requested the State Government on 31st January 2017 to keep in mind its directives in letter dated 17 th November 2016 while issuing appointment orders to selected candidates.

(a) Whenever there is a provision for a preferential academic qualification or experience in the rules of recruitment of the post it shall be accorded the highest priority while shortlisting the candidates for interview."

37. It is common ground that the MPSC has conducted the selection by applying the provisions of Rules of 2014. Rule 9 provides for shortlisting of candidates for interview. If the posts advertised are three or more, the number of candidates who can be called for interview is only three times. In the present case, 189 posts of Dental Surgeon were advertised and, therefore, applying Rule 9, only 567 candidates were required to be called for interview. Rule 9 (v)(a) provides for application of criteria of preferential academic qualification for shortlisting. The Recruitment Rules provide for preference to be given to candidates possessing MDS degree. Therefore, under Rule 9 (v) (a) of Rules of 2014, the MPSC is entitled to 902-WPST-9195-2021 + (1) shortlist the candidates on the basis of higher preferential qualification. In the present case, since only 567 candidates were to be interviewed from amongst 9420 candidates, who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement, MPSC was entitled to resort to shortlisting. In our view, therefore, MPSC has rightly applied the criteria of possession of higher and preferential qualification of MDS for shortlisting the candidates for interview.

(ii) However, directions issued by the Tribunal in para 30 of the judgment are not disturbed and are modified to the extent as directed below.

(iii) Writ Petition St. Nos. 9195/2021 and Writ Petition No.7201/2019 filed by the original applicants are disposed of with a direction to MPSC to consider the names of original applicants who are already interviewed in pursuance of interim order of the Tribunal for being recommended to the State Government based on their performance in the interview against 67 unfilled vacancies of Dental Surgeon. This exercise be carried out by MPSC within a period of six weeks from today. In the event of such original applicants being recommended by the MPSC, the State Government shall consider their names for being appointed against 67 unfilled posts of Dental Surgeon prospectively. They shall not be entitled to any benefits from an earlier date. The State Government to complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of recommendations from the MPSC.