Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary … vs Shri. Sanjay Krishnaji Bhokrdole And … on 10 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:1113-DB
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN
DILWALE Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN DILWALE
Date: 2025.01.10
17:28:42 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.7920 OF 2015
1. Meenal Shashikant Joglekar ]
R/of Worli, Mumbai ]
2. Kirti Prakashrao Moharil ]
R/of Worli, Mumbai ]
3. Varsha Santosh Andhale ]
R/of Tardeo, Mumbai ]
4. Kiran Janardan Moghe ]
R/of Golf Club, Nashik ]
..Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Information & Public Relations Dept. ]
General Administration Department ]
2. The Director General, ]
Information & Public Relations Department, ]
Maharashtra State ]
3. Sanjay Krishnaji Bhokardole ]
Free Lance Journalist, ]
R/of Shri Krishna Colony, Jalgaon ]
..Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1890 OF 2017
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Information & Public Relations, ]
General Administration Department ]
2. The Director General, ]
Information & Public Relations Department, ]
Maharashtra State ]
..Petitioners
Versus
1. Sanjay Krishnaji Bhokardole ]
Free Lance Journalist, ]
R/of Shri Krishna Colony, Jalgaon ]
2. Meenal Shashikant Joglekar ]
R/of Worli, Mumbai ]
1/30
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
3. Kirti Prakashrao Moharil ]
R/of Worli, Mumbai ]
4. Varsha Santosh Andhale ]
R/of Tardeo, Mumbai ]
5. Dr. Kiran Janardan Moghe ]
District Information Officer, Nashik ]
6. Kishor Ramesh Gangurde ]
7. Purnima Jagannath Khairnar ]
8. Hemraj Kashinath Bagul ]
9. Devendra Laxman Patil ]
10. Take Pravin Krishnarao ]
..Respondents
Mr. Mohan Sudame, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aniket Mokashi,
Ms. Ruchita Chavan i/by Mr. Amit Karkhanis, Advocates for the
Petitioners in WP 7920/2015 and for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in WP
1890/2017.
Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. D.S.
Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for petitioner-State in
WP 1890/2017 and for the respondent-State in WP 1890/2017.
Mr. Himanshu Patil with Mr. Suransh Sonar, Mr. Suresh Ghamre
and Mr. Kapil Agarwal, Advocates for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
Date on which the arguments concluded : 11thOctober 2024
Date on which the judgment is pronounced : 10th January 2025
JUDGMENT :
{ Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. }
1. In these writ petitions, a challenge has been raised to
the common judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative
2/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) dated 31/07/2015
in Original Application Nos.4 of 2011 and 5 of 2011. B
virtue of the impugned judgment, the selection and
appointment of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7920 of
2015 on the post of District Information Officer, Group-A
(Junior) has been quashed and the Department of Public
Relations, State of Maharashtra has been directed to
conduct a fresh process of selection for four posts from the
open category of District Information Officer. The State of
Maharashtra through its Department of Public
Relations being aggrieved by the said common judgment
has also challenged the same in Writ Petition No.1890 of
2017.
2. Facts relevant for considering the challenge as
raised are that on 11/02/2008, the Director General of
Information and Public Relations issued A dvertisement
N o . 2 of 2008 wherein eight posts of District Information
Officer were advertised. One post was reserved for
candidates from the Schedule Castes Category, three
posts were reserved for candidates from the Other
3/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
Backward Class Category and four posts were kept for
candidates from the Open Category. Of these four posts,
three posts were reserved for women and one post was
reserved for sport-persons. The petitioners in Writ Petition
No.7920 of 2015 (for short, ‘the selected candidates’) had
participated in the recruitment process. The respondent
no.3 in the said writ petition (for short, ‘the aggrieved
candidate’) was aged about 37 years when the
advertisement was issued. The upper age limit prescribed
for candidates who were not in Government service was 35
years. The upper age limit could be relaxed under Rule 7
of the Director (Information Officer), Deputy Director
(Information), Senior Sub- Editor, Senior Assistant
Director, District Information Officer and Public Relations
Officer (Grade-A) and Assistant Director (Grade-B) in the
Directorate General of Information and Public Relations
(Recruitment) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Recruitment
Rules of 1994’). As the aggrieved candidate was not called
for the written examination, he had filed Writ Petition
No.3419 of 2008 at the Aurangabad Bench of this Court.
4/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
Pursuant an interim order passed in the said writ petition
on 16/05/2008, the aggrieved candidate appeared for the
written examination and scored 62 out of 100 marks.
The selected candidates scored 68, 59 and 57 marks
respectively. The said writ petition was permitted to be
withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal. The
aggrieved candidate thereafter filed Original Application
No.410 of 2008 seeking a declaration as regards his
entitlement to age relaxation. In the meanwhile, on
03/07/2008 the General Administration Department
issued an order appointing the selected candidates on the
post of District Information Officer. The aggrieved candidate
being aggrieved by their selection preferred Original
Application No.5 of 2011.
3. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions
found that the candidature of the aggrieved candidate was
wrongly rejected in view of breach of Rule 7 of the
Recruitment Rules. It held that three posts from the Open
Category were wrongly reserved for women as only one
5/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
post could have been reserved and that the reservation of
one post from open category for sport persons was also
wrong. It further found that the Non-Creamy Layer
Certificate produced by two successful candidates were
incorrect and that without verifying the same, their
candidature was considered. On these grounds, the
selection of the selected candidates was held to be illegal
and thus quashed. A direction was issued to conduct a
fresh process of selection for four posts of District
Information Officer from the open category afresh. The
application for age relaxation preferred by the aggrieved
candidate was directed to be decided as per Rule 7 of the
Recruitment Rules. This common judgment is assailed in
these writ petitions.
4. Mr. Mohan Sudame, learned Senior Advocate for the
successful candidates submitted that the Tribunal
committed a grave error in holding the selection of the
selected candidates to be illegal. According to him, the
Tribunal was not justified in holding that it was for the
Selection Committee to recommend age relaxation of any
6/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
candidate. It erroneously held that the matter was never
placed before the Selection Committee to enable it to
consider whether the age of the aggrieved candidate ought
to be relaxed. It was submitted that age relaxation was
required to be considered by the appointing authority
which in the present case was the Secretary of the
concerned Department. Only if the appointing authority
found that a candidate had exceptional qualifications or
experience that the name of such candidate could be
included in the zone of consideration. The Selection
Committee was concerned only with inter se merit of the
candidates and it was expected to treat all candidates
equal. The issue with regard to grant of age relaxation
was not within the province of the Selection Committee.
Though the aggrieved candidate had filed Writ Petition
No.3419 of 2008 seeking age relaxation, that writ
petition was not further prosecuted after obtaining
interim relief on 16/05/2008 so as to participate in the
selection process. The aggrieved candidate therefore was
not interviewed by the Selection Committee. It was then
7/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
submitted that the aggrieved candidate did not challenge
Advertisement No.2 of 2008 but merely challenged the
selection of the successful candidates. This was after
participating in the selection process. In absence of any
challenge to the advertisement, it was not permissible for
the Tribunal to go into the question as to whether there
was any excessive reservation for women from the open
category. It was thus clear that the Tribunal had
travelled beyond the prayers made in the Original
Application. The learned Senior Advocate further
submitted that the Tribunal erred in concluding that
the aggrieved candidate had exceptional qualifications to
entitle him to seek age relaxation. This was a matter to
be considered by the appointing authority and not the
Tribunal. Without indicating as to how the experience
and qualification of the aggrieved candidate were
exceptional, the Tribunal had interfered in exercise of
jurisdiction conferred upon it. As regards submission of
Non-Creamy Layer Certificates, it was pointed out that
prior to being duly selected, the successful candidates
8/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
had submitted their documents in that regard. After due
verification, the same were found to be in order and
accepted by the appointing authority. It was thus
submitted that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in
allowing the Original Application preferred by the
aggrieved candidate and setting aside the selection of the
selected candidates. To substantiate his contentions, the
learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the
f o l l o w i n g decisions:-
Sonali Ramkrishna Bayani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 917 Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors., 2002 INSC 276 Dilip Punjaji Kharat Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1612 Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., 1995 INSC 100 Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar 9/30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 10:02:53 ::: Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc Shukla & Ors., 1986 INSC 43 Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 754 Ms. Neha Achrekar Vs. Directorate of Technical Education, 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 841 Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors., 2004 INSC 573 Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Bhanu Lodh & Ors., 2005 INSC 104 Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. with connected matter, 2007 INSC 761 Kanchan Vishwanath Jagtap Vs. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors., 2016 (1) Mh.L.J. 934 Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1995 INSC 428 10/30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 10:02:53 ::: Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc Swati Gupta Vs. State of U. P. & Ors., 1995 INSC 94 Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., with connected matter, (1974) 2 SCC 831 A. Sanjeevi Naidu, Etc. Vs. State of Madras and Anr., 1970 INSC 15 Mohd. Mustafa Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2021 INSC 731 Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 305 S.B. Bhattacharjee Vs. S. D., Majumdar and Ors., 2007 INSC 584
It was thus submitted that the impugned judgment of
the Tribunal be set aside and the appointment of the
selected candidates be upheld.
5. Mr. B.V. Samant, learned Additional Government
Pleader for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1890 of
11/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
2017 adopted the aforesaid submissions. In addition, it
was submitted that as the aggrieved candidate was not
eligible to participate in the selection process being over-
aged on the date of the advertisement, the challenge at
his behest was not liable to be entertained. The Tribunal
committed an error by directing the matter with regard
to his age relaxation to be re-considered without noticing
any illegality in the same. When it was clear that the
aggrieved candidate was not eligible to be appointed on the
post of District Information Officer, the Tribunal was not
justified in entertaining the Original Application on
merit. Referring to the decision in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu
and Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., (1998) 7 SCC
273 which was also referred to before the Tribunal, i t
was submitted that the Tribunal committed a
jurisdictional error while setting aside the appointment
of the selected candidates. He submitted that the ratio of
the decision in Renu and Ors. Vs. District and Sessions
Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Anr., (2014) 14 SCC 50
was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. It
12/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
was thus submitted that the common judgment of the
Tribunal was liable to be set aside.
6. Mr. Himanshu Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
aggrieved candidate supported the impugned judgment of
the Tribunal. He submitted that the aggrieved candidate
was eligible to be considered for appointment on the post
of District Information Officer. As he was not permitted to
participate in the selection process, he had preferred
Original Application No.4 of 2011. Since the appointment
of the selected candidates had been made on 03/07/2008,
the same was challenged in Original Application No.5 of
2011. He referred to the Government Resolution dated
25/05/2001 and submitted that maximum reservation of
30% ought to have been provided for women. The same
however exceeded the permissible limit in the present case
and hence the Tribunal rightly held that Advertisement
No.2 of 2008 resulted in excessive horizontal reservation.
Reference was made to Rule 2(d) of the Recruitment
Rules of 1994 to submit that the upper age limit could be
relaxed under Rule 7 on the recommendation of the
13/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
Selection Committee. The Selection Committee however
failed to make any such recommendation despite the
qualifications and experience of the aggrieved candidate
being exceptional. He also referred to the Non-Creamy
Layer Certificates of the successful candidates and
submitted that the competent authority failed to notice the
short comings therein. It was therefore submitted that the
Tribunal having considered all relevant aspects, i t was
justified in setting aside the selection of the selected
candidates and directing a fresh recruitment exercise to be
undertaken in the matter. No interference therefore was
called for with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and we have also perused the documents placed on
record. The dispute pertains to the entitlement of the
aggrieved candidate to be considered for appointment on
the post of District Information Officer. Advertisement No.2
of 2008 was issued on 11/02/2008 and the last date for
submission of applications was 29/02/2008. As per the
said advertisement, a candidate was required to be aged
14/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
between eighteen years and thirty-five years with a
relaxation of five years for candidates from the reserved
category. The upper age limit was not applicable to
candidates who were already in service of the State
Government. The aggrieved candidate was aged thirty-
seven years five months and twenty-eight days as on the
last date for submission of application forms. The aggrieved
candidate was not in Government service and thus he was
beyond the maximum permissible age of thirty-five years
when he had applied for recruitment. Under Rule 7 of the
Recruitment Rules, the age limit could be relaxed by the
Government on the recommendation of the Selection
Committee with regard to a candidate having exceptional
qualifications or experience or both. In this regard, it may
be noted that on 09/06/2006, a Selection Committee came
to be duly constituted. The said Selection Committee was
holding the field when it considered about twenty-four
applications of candidates who were beyond the age of
thirty-five years in the matter of granting age relaxation. In
its Minutes dated 25/04/2008, it considered the cases of
15/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
said twenty-four candidates but did not find the case of any
of them as having either exceptional qualifications or
experience or both on the basis of which it could
recommend their names for age relaxation. No candidate
was therefore recommended by the Selection Committee to
the Government in accordance with Rule 7 of the
Recruitment Rules. Prior to the completion of recruitment,
the Selection Committee came to be reconstituted on
17/06/2008. It is thereafter that on 03/07/2008 the
successful candidates came to be appointed on the post of
District Information Officer.
In this context, the Tribunal recorded a finding that it
was not open for the Government to act without the
recommendations of the Selection Committee. It further
observed that the case of the aggrieved candidate for
consideration of age relaxation was rejected on 29/04/2008
while the Selection Committee constituted pursuant to the
Government Resolution dated 09/06/2006 was headed by
the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department. It held that the case of the aggrieved
16/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
candidate for age relaxation was not considered as per the
Rules and therefore the decision of the State Government
not to allow the aggrieved candidate to participate in the
selection process on the ground that he was over-aged was
not sustainable. The Tribunal then proceeded to consider
the experience of the aggrieved candidate. It observed that
though he had extensive experience in various newspapers
as Sub-Editor, Reporter and even as Editor, the same was
not considered. It proceeded to compare the experience of
the aggrieved candidate with the experience of the selected
candidates in the backdrop of the contention raised by the
aggrieved candidate that the selected candidates did not
possess any experience of supervisory nature in a
newspaper. On that premise, the Tribunal held the
selection of the selected candidates to be illegal. It was of
the view that the application of the aggrieved candidate for
age relaxation ought to be re-considered while directing a
fresh exercise of recruitment to be undertaken.
8. Since the Tribunal has set aside the selection of the
selected candidates while deciding Original Application
17/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
Nos.4 and 5 of 2011, it would be necessary to consider the
case set up by the aggrieved candidate. In this regard, it is
material to note that according to the aggrieved candidate
his application for seeking age relaxation to enable his
participation in the recruitment process pursuant to
Advertisement No.2 of 2008 was not being considered by
the concerned Authorities. The written examination under
the said advertisement was scheduled on 17/05/2008. The
aggrieved candidate therefore filed Writ Petition No.3419 of
2008 before the Aurangabad Bench and by virtue of the
interim order dated 16/05/2008 passed in the said writ
petition, he was permitted to appear in the written
examination scheduled on 17/05/2008. His results
however were directed not to be declared. Pursuant to this
interim order, the aggrieved candidate appeared in the
written examination. The aforesaid writ petition however
came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 01/07/2008 with
liberty to the aggrieved candidate approach the Tribunal
since an alternate remedy was available. While withdrawing
the said writ petition, no direction was obtained by the
18/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
aggrieved candidate to have his result declared pursuant to
his appearance in the written examination held on
17/05/2008. As a consequence, the outcome of the
appearance of the aggrieved candidate in the written
examination held on 17/05/2008 has not come on record.
In absence of any further direction being issued in the
proceedings initiated by the aggrieved candidate, he was
not called for his oral interview. It is thus clear from the
documents on record that having appeared in the written
examination pursuant to the interim order dated
16/05/2008, there is no further direction issued by the
High Court/Tribunal to declare his result. Similarly, the
aggrieved candidate was not interviewed by the Selection
Committee.
9. Pursuant to the liberty granted to the aggrieved
candidate, he approached the Tribunal by filing Original
Application No.410 of 2008. In the said proceedings he
challenged the rejection of his candidature on the ground
that he was treated as age-barred. Thereafter the aggrieved
candidate filed Original Application No.477 of 2008
19/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
challenging the selection process as well as the selection of
the selected candidates. These Original Applications were
considered by the Tribunal and on 15/12/2010, the
Tribunal at Aurangabad passed an order transferring the
said proceedings to the Tribunal at Mumbai on the ground
that the cause of action for filing the said proceedings arose
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at
Mumbai. It is thereafter that the said proceedings were
converted into Original Application Nos.4 of 2011 and 5 of
2011 at the Tribunal at Mumbai.
10. A perusal of the grounds raised by the aggrieved
candidate in Original Application No.410 of 2008 as initially
filed on 02/07/2008 and subsequently numbered as
Original Application No.4 of 2011 wherein he was seeking
the benefit of age relaxation is concerned, it can be seen
that the aggrieved candidate has not raised any ground
that his application for age relaxation was considered by a
Committee that was not empowered to do so. The grounds
raised by him relate to his entitlement to age relaxation on
account of his exceptional qualifications and experience. It
20/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
is his case that he had better experience and better
qualifications warranting grant of such age relaxation. The
Tribunal however in the impugned judgment has proceeded
on the premise that the Committee which considered the
applications of twenty-four candidates for age relaxation
was not competent to undertake such exercise and that the
said issue required re-consideration.
In our view, when the aggrieved candidate did not
prefer to challenge the competence of the Committee to
undertake the exercise of assessment of the claims of
individual candidates after which it submitted its report
dated 22/04/2004 deciding not to recommend any name
for age relaxation, this aspect could not have been
expanded by the Tribunal by going into the competence of
the said Committee. The Tribunal could not have gone
beyond the case as pleaded by the aggrieved candidate. We
therefore find that the Tribunal has travelled beyond the
pleadings of the aggrieved candidate to record a finding
that the exercise undertaken by the Committee while
considering the entitlement of the aggrieved candidate for
21/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
age relaxation was not competent to do so.
11. Another relevant aspect to be noticed is that the
Tribunal took upon itself the consideration of the question
as to whether the aggrieved candidate had exceptional
experience and qualification to enable him to be entitled for
age relaxation. It considered the credentials of all twenty
four candidates and thereafter proceeded to record a
finding that the aggrieved candidate had extensive
experience as a Sub-Editor, Reportor and Editor. By
observing that none of the selected candidates possessed
experience of any supervisory nature, it proceeded to hold
that the claim of the aggrieved candidate had been wrongly
rejected by the Committee.
We find that the Tribunal erred in itself undertaking
the exercise of assessment of the comparative experience
and qualification of the twenty four candidates who were
overage. While doing so, it substituted its view in place of
the view taken by the Committee as reflected in the
minutes dated 29/04/2008. There is no finding recorded
22/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
by the Tribunal that the exercise undertaken by it while
considering the cases of twenty four candidates was so
arbitrary or perverse that its conclusion deserved
interference. Perusal of paragraph 8 of the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal has
merely observed that the aggrieved candidate had extensive
experience of a supervisory nature than the selected
candidates. This alone could not have been the reason for
the Tribunal to have taken upon itself the task of
assessment of the respective experience and qualifications
of the overage candidates. The Tribunal appears to have
substituted its opinion in place of that of the Committee. In
our view, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction when it
proceeded to undertake such exercise.
12. It is also necessary to note that the aggrieved
candidate did not raise any specific challenge to
Advertisement No.2 of 2008 when it earmarked three posts
for women and one post for sportspersons from the four
posts reserved for candidates from the open category. In
23/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
fact, the aggrieved candidate participated in the
recruitment process and after the selected candidates were
issued orders of appointment, he challenged their selection
initially in Original Application No.477 of 2008 and
thereafter in Original Application No.5 of 2011. Having
failed to raise any challenge to the reservation of posts prior
to participating in the recruitment process, it was not
permissible to do so after having failed in succeeding in the
process of recruitment. The Tribunal has gone into this
aspect without going into the question as to whether it was
permissible for the aggrieved candidate to raise a challenge
to the reservation of posts without challenging the
advertisement in which such reservation was specifically
mentioned.
In our view, it was not permissible for the aggrieved
candidate to first participate in the recruitment process and
after failing to get selected, turn around and contend that
the reservation of posts was incorrectly done. The law in
this regard is well settled and reference in this regard can
be made to the decisions in Sonali Ramkrishna Bayani,
24/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
Chandraprakash Tiwari and Madan and Others (supra). The
Tribunal thus committed an error in entertaining a
challenge to the reservation of posts at the behest of the
aggrieved candidate though he had failed to raise a
challenge in that regard to the advertisement before
participating in the recruitment process.
13. It is to be further noted that the Tribunal placed
reliance on the underlined portion of paragraph 15 of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Renu and others Vs.
District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari (Civil Appeal No.979
of 2014 decided on 12/02/2014). Paragraph 15 of the said
decision reads as under :-
“15. Where any such appointments are
made, they can be challenged in the court of
law. The quo warranto proceeding affords a
judicial remedy by which any person, who
holds an independent substantive public
office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to
show by what right he holds the said office,
franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may
be duly determined, and in case the finding is
that the holder of the office has no title, he
would be ousted from that office by judicial
order. In other words, the procedure of quo25/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.docwarranto gives the judiciary a weapon to
control the executive from making
appointment to public office against law and
to protect a citizen from being deprived of
public office to which he has a right. These
proceedings also tend to protect the public
from usurpers of public office who might be
allowed to continue either with the connivance
of the executive or by reason of its apathy. It
will, thus, be seen that before a person can
effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he
has to satisfy the court that the office in
question is a public office and is held by a
usurper without legal authority, and that
inevitably would lead to an enquiry as to
whether the appointment of the alleged
usurper has been made in accordance with
law or not. For issuance of writ of quo
warranto, the Court has to satisfy that the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules
and the person holding the post has no right
to hold it.(Vide University of Mysore Vs. C. D.
Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Kumar
Padma Prasad Vs. Union of India, (1992) 2
SCC 428, B. R. Kapur Vs. State of T. N.,
(2001) 7 SCC 231: AIR 2001 SC 3435, Mor
Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. Vs. State
of Haryana, (2002) 6 SCC 269, Arun Singh
Vs. State of Bihar (2006) 9 SCC 375, Hari
Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010)
9 SCC 655, and Central Electricity Supply
Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo, (2014) 1
SCC 161″
It appears that the Tribunal misdirected itself in
26/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
relying upon the aforesaid underlined portion of paragraph
15 of the decision in Renu and others (supra). The
proceedings filed by the aggrieved candidate were not in the
nature of quo-warranto proceedings. The aggrieved
candidate had sought adjudication of his case for grant of
age relaxation and had thereafter challenged the selection of
the selected candidates. The considerations for issuance of
a writ of quo-warranto would be different from proceedings
filed for agitating a right claimed while seeking
consideration for appointment of a post. The Tribunal while
considering the Original Applications filed by the aggrieved
candidate was not entertaining any quo-warranto
proceedings since no such jurisdiction is conferred on the
Tribunal. We therefore find that exercise of jurisdiction by
the Tribunal by relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid
decision was unwarranted.
14. Once it is found that the aggrieved candidate had
failed to challenge Advertisement No.2 of 2008 insofar as it
provided for reservation of three posts for women and one
27/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
post for sportspersons, it was not permissible for the
aggrieved candidate to subsequently challenge the selection
of the selected candidates by contending that the said four
posts had been wrongly reserved. Such grievance ought to
have been raised prior to participating in the selection
process. The Tribunal failed to notice this relevant aspect
and proceeded to grant relief to the aggrieved candidate
despite the fact that he had taken a chance in the selection
process and was not selected. Further, the aggrieved
candidate did not obtain any order either from the High
Court or from the Tribunal to have his result declared
pursuant to the written examination conducted on
17/05/2008. The aggrieved candidate was also not
interviewed by the Selection Committee for consideration of
his candidate. Yet another relevant aspect to be noted is
that assuming that the aggrieved candidate was entitled to
relief, the appointment of the least meritorious candidate
could have been set aside. Instead, the selection of all the
four selected candidates has been set aside in the absence
of any challenge to the advertisement on the basis of which
28/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
the recruitment was undertaken. For all these reasons we
find that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the
Original Applications preferred by the aggrieved candidate
and granting him relief. The common judgment of the
Tribunal therefore deserves to be interfered with.
Since we have found that the aggrieved candidate is
not entitled to any relief as he had failed to challenge
Advertisement No.2 of 2008 when it provided for reservation
for the four posts, it is not necessary to go into the question
as to whether the Non-Creamy Layer Certificates submitted
by the selected candidates were valid or not. The appointing
authority having examined this aspect and being satisfied
that the said certificates were valid, it is not necessary to
adjudicate upon the same.
15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the following
order is passed:-
i) The common judgment of the Tribunal
dated 31/07/2015 passed in Original Application
Nos.4 of 2011 and 5 of 2011 is set aside. Both
29/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::
Rameshwar Dilwale 901-WP-7920-2015 & WP-1890-2017.doc
the Original Applications stand dismissed.
ii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms in
both the writ petitions leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
30/30
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 10:02:53 :::