CASE TITLE: Ashok Mallinath Halsangi. V. The State of Maharashtra and ors
CASE NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 7650 OF 2023
ORDER ON:03-05-2024
QUORUM: J. JITENDRA JAIN, And J. A. S. CHANDURKAR,
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The writ petition in question, along with other writ petitions raising the common issue for consideration of this court, and being disposed of by a common judgment has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17th March 2023 of the Full Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai.
The factual matrix that led to the present petition is that On 30th November 2019, the Respondent-State issued an advertisement for the recruitment of three posts out of which one being, District Police Constable Driver, therefore, as a result of the said advertisement around 1,17,000 applications were received for the post of Police Constable Drivers. Out of which , it was noticed that around 2897 candidates have filled in more than one application for the said post. The Respondent-State disqualified/terminated these candidates on the ground that the advertisement specifically provided that one candidate cannot make more than one application for the same post in various districts. These 2897 candidates made multiple applications for the said one post in different districts with different mobile numbers, email ids, and in some of cases different Aadhaar card numbers. Some of the candidates did not even furnish their aadhaar card numbers. Some of these candidates also made minor changes to the spelling of their parent’s name etc. in different applications. When the Matter came before the tribunal, the Full Bench on a reading of clause 11.10 of the advertisement, concluded that these candidates were rightly disqualified. Therefore on this backdrop, the present petition is filed .
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Article 226 of the Indian constitution: power of High Courts to issue certain writs
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contend that the Full Bench of the Tribunal has not considered clause 11.17 of the advertisement which provides that if two email ids are furnished then the one which is registered first will be considered for all the purposes of the recruitment process and the other email ids will be ignored to contend that more than one application is permissible. The counsel further submitted that clause 11.10 does not prohibit a candidate from applying for the same post in different districts since the recruitment being each district. The counsel further submits that on a harmonious reading of clause 11.10 read with 11.17, the restriction is that a candidate for the same district cannot apply for the same post more than once. The counsel, therefore, submitted that since they have applied for the said post by making more than one application for different districts, hence, Respondent State is not justified in disqualifying/terminating them.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent State and other successful candidates contended that by the modus operandi adopted by the Petitioners, they have violated the condition specified in clause 11.10 by making multiple applications for the same post in different districts. The counsel further, submitted that clauses 11.10 and 11.17 operate in different fields and the same cannot be construed harmoniously, but are to be construed independently. The counsel further submitted that the post for which the advertisement has been issued is for the candidates who will regulate the law and order of the State and if a candidate has violated clause 11.10 by making multiple applications, such candidates have committed fraud and are not fit for being considered for the post. Therefore submitted that from the conduct and acts of the Petitioners, it is very clear that they have intentionally made more than one application by giving different mobile numbers, email ids, etc. The Respondents, therefore, supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed for the dismissal of the present petition.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The court on hearing both sides, analysed the clauses of the advertisement dated 30th November 2019 and opined that in the light of clause 11.10 of the advertisement, the candidate cannot make more than one application for the same post in more than one police unit, there is not only an express prohibition for making more than one application for the same post in the same unit but also there is a prohibition for making an application for the same post in more than one unit. Therefore, even on a pure and plain reading of clause 11.10, the submission made by the Petitioners is to be rejected.the court opined that there is no ambiguity of clause 11.10 and, therefore, this Court in the garb of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. This Court cannot adopt an interpretative rewriting of clause 11.10 of the advertisement, the court also opined that the harmonious construction of the two clauses i.e, 11.10 and 11.17 is to an extent that a candidate cannot be permitted to make more than one application for the same post qua each district. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners on this count is also required to be rejected.
The court observed that in Clause 14.4- no fault can be found in the Tribunal’s order and the acts of the Respondent-State in disqualifying the Petitioners from the selection process or from termination of employment.The court opined that out of 1,17,000 candidates who applied for the post only 2897 candidates were found to have adopted the course of making multiple applications. Thereforefore the remaining candidates correctly made one application for one post on a proper understanding of clause 11.10. If the Petitioners’ contention on a reading of clause 11.10 is to be accepted then we fail to understand why miniscule percentage of the candidates understood so and why almost majority candidates understood the clause correctly.therefore the court opined that the submission of the Petitioners would amount to giving premium to such conduct and punishing the prudent candidates which course of action cannot be approved by this Court, irrespective of the post for which the vacancy has been advertised and although more so in the present case where vacancy is in the Police Force.Given the above, analysis and concerning, Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balram Bahira & Ors the court does not find any fault in the action of the Respondent-State and the order of the Tribunal confirming the same. Therefore the court dismissed the writ petition. Therefore given the disposal of the Writ Petitions, the Interim Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 19. The operation of the present judgment is stayed for a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
judgement reviewed by: Sowmya.R
