Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs Chetan Shankar Niwalkar & Anr.

(Per SUMAN SHYAM, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

In this Writ Petition filed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short “MPSC”), the Judgment and Order dated 3^rd October, 2025, passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), Mumbai Bench, in Original Application No. 151 of 2025 with Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2025, has been put under challenge inter alia on the ground that the directions issued by the learned Tribunal for recommending the Applicant’s name for appointment to the post of “Fisheries Development Officer, Group-B” as an OBC (general candidate), is erroneous, illegal and hence, unsustainable in the eyes of law.

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 31^st January, 2020, the Petitioner (MPSC) had issued Advertisement Notice bearing No. 04 of 2020 inviting applications for filling up as many as 27 posts of Fisheries Development Officer (‘FDO’), Group-B. As per the Advertisement Notice, 4 out of the 27 posts were reserved for being filled up by OBC Category Candidates. Out of these 4 posts, one OBC Category post was further reserved for a female candidate. In other words, one out of the four OBC Category Posts was reserved for female candidate. That apart, as per the advertisement, one post was required to be reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD). As such, out of the 4 posts reserved for the OBC Candidate, 1 (one) was for women OBC Candidate. That apart, 1 (one) post in the OBC Category Candidate was kept reserved for PwD Category Candidate.

The Respondent No.1 (Original Applicant), viz., Shri Chetan Shankar Niwalkar, had submitted his candidature for the post of FDO as an OBC (General) Candidate. It appears that on completion of the selection process, merit list was prepared on 15^th September, 2023, and the recommendations were sent by the MPSC on 10^th October, 2023. In the merit list, the name of the Respondent No.1 appeared in Sr. No. 42, as an OBC (General) Male Candidate, he having scored 112.50 marks in total. The name of one Musane Amol Sanjiv, having scored 84.50 marks in total, appeared at Sr. No. 107 of the final merit list, as a Male OBC Category Candidate. However, in the column of ‘Other Reservation’ it was indicated against the name of this candidate that he was suffering from “Visual Impairment”, thus indicating that he belongs to the PwD Category as well. Likewise, the name of one Pranay Bhadade, who had scored 80.50 marks in total, was listed at Sr. No. 110, as a Male OBC Candidate, but he was also a candidate with “Visual Impairment”. In between Musane Amol Sanjiv and Pranay Bhadade, there was no other Male OBC Candidate of PwD category.

It further appears from the material on record that after the select list was published and appointment order was issued in favour of Musane Amol Sanjiv, he was promoted to the post of FDO through the departmental promotional avenue, in which post, he had joined on 11^th June, 2024. As such, the vacancy earmarked for ‘OBC Open Category Candidate’ with ‘Visual Impairment’ (PwD) was eventually not filled up by Musane Amol Sanjiv.

On 12^th June, 2024, the Respondent No.1/Original Applicant submitted a representation seeking recommendation of his name for the post of FDO as OBC (General) Category Candidate. Such representation was followed up by the representations by dated 14^th August, 2024 and 24^th September, 2024. Since no response to his representations was received by the Respondent No.1, hence, he had instituted Original Application before the learned Tribunal on 7^th February, 2025. The Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned Judgment dated 3^rd October, 2025 with a direction upon the Petitioner to recommend his name for appointment as FDO as an OBC (General) Category Candidate against the post reserved for the OBC category. Assailing the Judgment and Order dated 3^rd October, 2025, the MPSC is before this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has argued that the vacancy against which the candidature of Musane Amol Sanjiv was considered was not only reserved for the OBC candidate, but it was also the vacancy reserved for the PwD Category Candidate, which in the present case, was for a person with ‘Visual Impairment’. However, since Musane Amol Sanjiv was promoted to the post of FDO by the Departmental Channel, the aforesaid post, according to Mr. Kulkarni, was not filled up from the select list. In the meantime, the validity of waiting list/merit list has expired. Mr. Kulkarni further argued that the requisition from the Government to make recommendation for the vacant post of OBC Category reached the MPSC only on 12^th December, 2024, i.e., after the expiry of the select list/waiting list on 9^th October, 2024. However, even in the said requisition of the Government, the Petitioner was asked to recommend a candidate belonging to the PwD Category. Therefore, even if the recommendation was to be made by the MPSC, the same could not have been in favour of the Respondent No.1/Original Applicant, since he did not belong to the PwD Category with low vision.

Referring to the impugned Judgment dated 3^rd October, 2025, passed by the learned Tribunal, Mr. Kulkarni has further argued that the impugned Judgment is not based on any cogent reason but the same has been passed on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in a case of State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. vs. Sat Pal^{11.(2013) 11 SCC 737}, whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had invoked jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and passed an order in order to do complete justice. On such count, Mr. Kulkarni has prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Tribunal.

Supporting the arguments of the Petitioner’s Counsel, Mr. Gavhane, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent No.2-State, has argued that the vacancy in question was reserved for an OBC Candidate belonging to PwD Category, which is apparent even from the Government requisition dated 12^th December, 2024. Therefore, no directions to recommend the name of the Original Applicant/Respondent No.1 could have been issued by the learned Tribunal for filling up the said vacancy which was reserved for OBS (PwD) category candidate.

Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, on the other hand, has supported the decision of the learned Tribunal by contending that since Musane Amol Sanjiv, who was an OBC Category Candidate with physical disability was promoted through the departmental channel, hence, the resultant vacancy ought to have been filled up by appointing the Respondent No.1/ Original Applicant since he is an OBC Category Candidate, securing higher marks. Contending that, neither Musane Amol Sanjiv nor Pranay Bhadade had a valid Non Creamy Layer Certificate, Mr. Jadhav has submitted that none of them could have been appointed against the posts reserved for the OBC Category.

By referring to the observations made in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 3^rd October, 2025, Mr. Jadhav has argued that the Original Applicant/Respondent No.1 had made out a strong case on merit. In view of the successive representations submitted by him before the Authorities, the Original Applicant cannot be held responsible for delay, if any, in approaching the Tribunal. As such, the Writ Petition be dismissed.

We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have also gone through the material available on record.

In the present case, we are concerned only with the four posts of FDO, which were reserved for the OBC Category Candidates. Out of these four posts, one post was reserved for OBC Female Candidate and one for OBC PwD Candidate. Therefore, there were only two posts left for the OBC (General) Category which could have been filled up by operating the merit/select list. Against the aforesaid two posts, the names of two OBC (General) Category Candidates, viz., Abhinav Ashok Vaichalkar and Rishikesh Dattatray Thakare, who had scored higher marks than the Respondent No.1, were recommended. The name of Musane Amol Sanjiv was recommended as an OBC (General) PwD Category Candidate. The Respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection to such recommendation. However, Musane Amol Sanjiv was ultimately promoted to the post of FDO.

As has been noted herein-above, the Advertisement Notice itself made it clear that one post would be kept reserved for the PwD Category Candidate. Accordingly, one OBC post was kept reserved for PwD Category. The Original Applicant has not challenged the said assertion of the MPSC. Therefore, he cannot now raise any grievance in that regard. We say so because the recommendation of Shri. Musane Amol Sanjiv, who had scored lower marks than the Original Applicant, but his name was recommended as an OBC (General) Candidate by showing him as a person with Visual Impairment (PwD), was never assailed by the Respondent. The Original Applicant had evidently accepted the position that one post is OBC Category was reserved for PwD Candidates. He did not stake any claim against the said post until such time Musane Amol Sanjiv was promoted as FDO on 11^th June, 2024. It is only after Musane Amol Sanjiv’s promotion to the post of FDO that the Original Applicant had submitted his representation on 12^th June, 2024, staking a claim against the said post for appointment on the basis of the Select List.

In the above context, it will be pertinent to note herein that reservation for persons with disability falls under Clause (1) of the Article 16 and is a “horizontal reservation”. Such “horizontal reservation”, which cuts across “vertical reservation”, can be provided in any category or vacancies, including OBC Category, as in the present case. The law on the above subject has been settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Indra Sawhney & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors.^{22.1992 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 217} The relevant observations made in paragraph 812 of the said decision are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

Apart from the above, the Petitioner had consistently taken the stand that no recommendation for appointment could be made after the select list dated 10^th October, 2023 had lapsed. By inviting our attention to Rule 10(8)(b) of “The Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014”, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the select list and/or the waiting list had lapsed on the expiry of one year from the date of declaration of the result.

In the present case, there is no subsequent advertisement for the posts. Therefore, as per Rule 10(8)(b) the reserved list would lapse8 on the expiry of one year from the date of declaration of the result. There is no controversy about the fact that the results were declared on 10^th October, 2023. If that be so, the merit/reserved list had evidently expired on 9^th October, 2024 by operation of the Rules, which fact has also been duly noted by the learned Tribunal. Under such circumstances, we fail to understand, as to on what basis, the learned Tribunal has issued the directions to recommend the name of the Original Applicant/ Respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of FDO, from an expired select list.

We have also noticed that the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on paragraph 11 of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sat Pal (supra), which is reproduced herein-below for ready reference.

In the case of Sat Pal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and instead, exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is a jurisdiction exclusively available to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for passing order for doing complete justice. Notwithstanding the same and despite being conscious of the fact that the observations and directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision were in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the said decision and by following the same, has issued the impugned directions.

The decision in Sat Pal (supra), is clearly distinguishable on facts as would be apparent from paragraph 11 of the said decision. The question therein was pertaining to the date on which the waiting list would commence to operate. The observations made therein were clearly on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had clarified that the decision rendered in that case was under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to do complete justice. Therefore, there was no scope for the learned Tribunal to hold that the decision in the case of Sat Pal (supra) would lay down a binding precedent permitting the learned Tribunal to issue the impugned directions.

There is yet another aspect of the matter, which deserves a mention herein. As has been noted herein-above, Shri. Pranay Bhadade was also a candidate of OBC (General) Category with Visual Impairment, placed just under Musane Amol Sanjiv in the select list. He was also a candidate from PwD Category. The Original Applicant has taken a plea that since the said candidate did not have an NCL Certificate, hence, he was not eligible for being appointed against the said post. The aforesaid assertion, of the Original Applicant, in our considered view, is not tenable in law since the Original Applicant has not impleaded Pranay Bhadade as a party in his Original Application. Having initially accepted the fact that the post in question had been ear-marked for OBC Category Candidate with Visual Impairment (PwD), the Original Applicant could not have prayed for a direction for his appointment against the said vacancy without impleading the OBC General (PwD) Category Candidate in his Original Application. Viewed from that angle also, we find that the Original Application itself was incompetent on account of non-joinder of necessary party and therefore, the impugned directions could not have been issued by the learned Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of this case.

For the reasons stated herein-above, the Writ Petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

The Judgment and Order dated 3^rd October, 2025 is accordingly quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

The parties to bear their own costs.