Dr. Rajendra Ramchandra Chaudhari Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Mumbai through Secretary and Another

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:12725-DB

¶2

wp1507.21

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1507 OF 2021

¶6

Dr. Rajendra Ramchandra Chaudhari,
aged about 46 years,
occupation : Associate Professor,
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Government Engineering College,
Nagpur, r/o Mihan Punarvasan Colony,
Khapari, Nagpur – 441108.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

- Versus -

¶9

1) Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, 3^rd Floor, Bank of India Building, M.G. Road, Huttatama Chowk, Mumbai-400023.

¶10

2) The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, 4^th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032. ... Respondents

¶11

Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for petitioner.

¶12

Smt. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶13

 CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 18, 2023

¶14

wp1507.21

¶15

2

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.):

¶17

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

2)The challenge raised in the present petition is to the
order dated 5/2/2021 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur dismissing the application preferred by the
petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the Original
Application before it. In the Original Application, the petitioner
sought to challenge the merit list and placement of candidates
selected including the petitioner with regard to the posts of Professor
in Mechanical Engineering.

¶19

3)Pursuant to the advertisement published on 4/1/2014
inviting applications for recruitment on the posts of Professor in the
subject of Mechanical Engineering, the petitioner participated in the
said selection process as a candidate belonging to “Other Backward
Class” category. In the select list, the petitioner was shown to be
placed at serial no.6. While the candidate placed at serial no.2 was
from the “Other Backward Class” category, his appointment was not

¶20

3 wp1507.21

¶21

shown as against candidates from open category. As a result, it is
the case of the petitioner that he could not be selected for the post in
question from the “Other Backward Class” category. It is urged by
the petitioner that since the candidate at serial no.2 stood second in
the merit, he ought to have been appointed on the post that was kept
for open candidates. If the same would have been done, the
petitioner would have been appointed on the second post that was
reserved for candidates from “Other Backward Class” category.
Along with the Original Application, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 praying that the delay of 166 days in filing the Original
Application be condoned. The learned Tribunal while deciding the
said application held that the merit list was valid only for a period of
one year. As the said merit list/select list was published in the year
2015 and the petitioner had filed the proceedings in the year 2019,
the life of the merit list being only one year, no relief could be
granted to the petitioner. On that count, the said application came
to be rejected.

¶22

4)We have heard Shri Kothale, learned Counsel for the
petitioner as well as Smt. Jachak, learned Assistant Government

¶23

4 wp1507.21

¶24

Pleader for the respondents. It is to be seen that the challenge raised
in the Original Application is to the preparation of the final select
list. It is the case of the petitioner that by incorrectly showing the
appointment of a candidate from the “Other Backward Class”
category as having been appointed in that category despite the fact
that the said candidate ought to have been appointed on a post
reserved for candidates belonging to open category, the petitioner
has lost the opportunity of selection. The challenge is not raised to
the operation of the wait list/reserve list. Pursuant to the order
dated 23/9/2022, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has
placed on record the Rules of Procedure, 2005 framed by the
Maharashtra Public Service Commission. As per Clause 10 thereof,
the life of the reserve list/wait list was prescribed to be two years
from the date of preparation of such reserve list. These Rules have
been amended in the year 2011 and the period of two years has been
reduced to one year. As a result, the reserve list would now lapse on
the expiry of one year from declaration of result.

¶25

5)We find that the learned Member of the Tribunal
proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the life of
the merit list was for only one year. There is a distinction between

¶26

5 wp1507.21

¶27

the merit list and the reserve list. The grievance of the petitioner is
with regard to the placement of candidates in the merit list. The
petitioner is not concerned with the reserve list maintained by the
respondents in that regard. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the
manner in which the merit list has been prepared, it would not be
correct to state that such grievance cannot be considered on the
ground that life of the reserve list has lapsed. We, therefore, find
that the petitioner’s request for condoning the delay and entertaining
the proceedings on merits has not been considered in the right
perspective. The petitioner was not liable to be non-suited on the
ground that the life of the merit list was only for one year.

¶28

6)For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to remit the
proceedings to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for a fresh
consideration in accordance with law. Hence, the following order is
passed :

¶29

The order dated 5/2/2021 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The proceedings are remanded
to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to consider the
application preferred by the petitioner under Section 21 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking condonation of delay.

¶30

6 wp1507.21

¶31

The Tribunal shall examine whether any sufficient cause for
condoning the delay in filing the Original Application has been made
out or not. If the delay is condoned, the proceedings shall be
decided on their own merits in accordance with law.

¶32

7)Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

¶33

order as to costs.

¶34

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

khj

Dr. Rajendra Ramchandra Chaudhari v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Mumbai through Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rajendra Ramchandra Chaudhari v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Mumbai through Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramu Mohanlal Chute Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Finance, Mumbai and Others

Madani Multipurpose Education and Social Welfare Society, Tunki Bk., Thr. Secretary and Ors. Vs Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati

Sahil S/O Pravin Dharmik Vs the S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Its Member-Secretary, Yavatmal and Others

Smt. Anusaya Balkisan Bhende Since (Died) Thr. Her Lrs. Harishchandra Uttamrao Ingale Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Amravati and Others

Abdul Kalim Abdul Hafiz Sheikh Vs Government of Maha., Thr. Its Planning Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Manik S/O Hemant Trivedi Vs the State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Thr. Its Commissioner and Others