Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Gajanan Babulal Bansode vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2021
Author: Hon’Ble Ms. Malhotra
Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2021 GAJANAN BABULAL BANSODE & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS ORDER
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The Government of Maharashtra issued a requisition on 02.06.2016
to the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) to conduct the
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination(“LDCE”) for selection of
candidates to the post of Police Sub Inspector.
2. The Home Department, Government of Maharashtra vide
Government Circular dated 27.06.2016 notified 828 vacancies, out of
which 642 were from the open category, and 186 were from various
reserved categories, for promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspector
through the LDCE– 2016.
Signature Not Verified
3. The selection was governed by the provisions of the Police Sub-
Digitally signed by
Reason: Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995. The relevant Rules are extracted
“Rule 3 : Appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police
Force in the State of Maharashtra shall be made either:
(a)by promotion of a suitable person on the basis of seniority subject to
fitness from amongst the persons holding the posts of Havaldar and
Assistant Police Sub-Inspector in the Police Force who have completed
not less than five years continuous regular service or seven years broken
service and who qualify in the departmental examination held by the
Director General of Police in accordance with the rules laid down in
paragraph 5 of the Government Resolution No. PSB. 0390/CR-408/POL-
5-A, dated 5th July 1995, 1994
(b) by selection of persons working in the Police Force on the basis of the
result of the limited departmental examination held by the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector
of Police for admission to which a candidate shall-
(i) not be more than 35 years of age :
Provided that, relaxation of age of five years may be granted to
candidates of Backward Classes and-
‘Provided also that, the candidates who were eligible to appear for the
limited departmental examination after 1st January, 1991, but who were not
allowed to appear for the limited departmental examinations held in 1998
and 2002 on account of the age limit, shall be given three chances to
appear for next consecutive examinations.
(ii) have completed a minimum regular service as Police Constable
with educational qualifications as mentioned below
Minimum Regular Service Educational Qualification
(1) 4 years .. Degree in any faculty.
(2) 5 years .. Passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate examination (3) 6 years .. Passed the Secondary School Certificate examination
(c) by nomination on the basis of the result of a competitive examination
held by the Commission in accordance with the rules made in this behalf
from time to time, and for admission to which a candidate shall :-
(i) not be less than nineteen years of age and not more than (twenty-
eight years) of age on the date specified by the Commission
Provided that the maximum age limit may be relaxed upto (thirty-one
years) in respect of candidates belonging to the Backward Classes:
Provided that an ex-serviceman who has served continuously in the
Armed Forces for a period of not less than 5 years may be allowed to
deduct from his age, the period of 2 years over and above the length of
his continuous service in the Armed Forces upto the date of release from
(ii) Possess a degree or any other qualification declared by the
Government to be equivalent thereto;
(iii) Possess the following minimum physical measurements, namely :
(i) Height .. 1165 Centimetres minimum.
(ii) Chest .. 79 Centimetres and above with minimum expansion of 5 centimetres. For Female Height .. 1157 Centimetres. 2
Rule 4: Appointment to the post of Police Sub- Inspector by promotion,
selection on the basis of limited departmental examination and nomination
shall be made in the ratio of 25:25:50.
Rule 5: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if in the opinion
of Government, the exigencies of service, ‘so requires, Government may
with prior consultation with MPSC make appointment to the post of Police
Sub-Inspector in relaxation of the ratio prescribed for appointment by
promotion selection on the basis of limited departmental examination or
4. The MPSC recommended the names of 828 candidates, out of which
642 were from the open category, who had secured 253 marks and
above; and 186 candidates were from the various reserved categories,
who had secured 230 marks and above, on the basis of the corrected
final result declared on 12.12.2017.
5. The Home Department, Government of Maharashtra vide a
Government Resolution No. Police -1818/ File 355/Pol 5A dated
22.04.2019 notified that the Cabinet had taken a policy decision to
accommodate 636 additional candidates who had secured more than
230 marks in the LDCE – 2016 examination.
6. On 11.06.2019, the Directorate General of Police issued a direction
for conducting the medical test and other formalities to send the
additional 636 candidates for training to the Maharashtra Police
Academy, Nasik, as a part of the process of their appointment to the post
of Police Sub-Inspector.
7. The Deputy Secretary of the MPSC addressed a letter dated
11.07.2019 to the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal and Security)
Government of Maharashtra wherein it was stated that as per Article 320
of the Constitution, the MPSC has the power to appoint candidates to
various posts in the State. The post of Police Sub-Inspector being a
Class III post, was required to be filled up in accordance with The Police
Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995. The list of 636 additional was
notified by the Government on its official website, had been done without
consulting the MPSC, which was a serious irregularity, and would
hamper the functioning of the Commission.
8. In the above background, various Original Applications were filed by
candidates to challenge the Policy decision contained in the G.R. dated
22.04.2019. In the present case O.A. No. 722 / 2019 was filed by a group
of In-service candidates who were working as Police Constables, and
were aggrieved by the impugned G.R., since it would adversely affect
their promotional prospects.
The Petitioners challenged the G.R. dated 22.04.2019 inter alia on
the ground that the additional 636 candidates who were directed to be
accommodated to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, was contrary to the
Recruitment Rules, and would have the inevitable effect of distorting the
ratio for recruitment through the Limited Departmental Examination.
Rule 4 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995
provides a quota of 25% for promotion through the Local Departmental
Examination. The appointment of 636 additional candidates would have
the effect of distorting the quota of 25% prescribed by Rule 4, and curtail
the future promotion opportunities of candidates who had either failed in
the LDCE-2016, or who were not eligible on account of age, experience
and educational qualification. The denial of promotional avenues to the
Petitioners in the foreseeable future would be violative of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal vide interim Order
dated 18.10.2019 directed that Status Quo be maintained with respect
to the 636 additional candidates whose list was appended to the
Government Resolution. This Order was passed on the basis of an
earlier Order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Principal Bench of the
Tribunal in O.A. No. 445 of 2019.
9. Respondents No. 5 and 6 herein filed Misc. Application No.545 of
2019 to vacate the interim Order of status quo dated 18.10.2019,
wherein it was prayed that a direction be given to the State to proceed
with the implementation of G.R. dated 22.04.2019.
10. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal vide Order dated
30.11.2019 vacated the interim Order dated 18.10.2019 on the ground
that two of the Petitioners had appeared in the LDCE exam, but failed to
qualify in the said examination; whilst the other Petitioners had not
participated in the exam. It was also held that the Petitioners had failed
to implead the 636 additional candidates who were directed to be
appointed under the impugned G.R., and were necessary parties to be
impleaded in the O.A. Reliance was placed on the Order passed by the
Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 3555/2019 Nivrathi Venkatrao Gitte v.
State of Maharashtra, wherein the same G.R. dated 22.04.2019 had
been challenged. The High Court had directed that the process of
selection may proceed, but would be subject to the results of the Writ
11. Aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2019, the Original Applicants /
Petitioners herein filed W.P. No. 15045 of 2019 before the Bombay High
Court, Aurangabad Bench.
The Bombay High Court rejected the Writ Petition, and the prayer to
maintain status quo with respect to the 636 additional candidates who
were directed to be appointed. The High Court declined to determine
whether the G.R. dated 22.04.2019 had been issued in extraordinary
circumstances as provided by Rule 5, since the O.A. was pending
adjudication before the Tribunal. The High Court however issued a
direction to the State Government to send the additional 636 candidates
for the training of 9 months; and, requested the Tribunal to dispose of
the pending O.A. within the same period, so that prior to the posting /
appointment orders being issued in favour of the additional candidates,
the O.A. would be decided.
12. We have heard Mr. Vinay Navare, Senior Advocate for the
Appellants, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate-on-record for the Respondent-
State of Maharashtra, Mr. Ravindra Adsure for the Caveators, and Mr.
R. Basant, Senior Advocate and Mr. M. N. Rao, Senior Advocate for the
Intervenors. With the consent of parties, we are disposing of the Appeal
at the admission stage.
13. Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution of India provides that the Union
Public Service Commission, or the State Public Service Commission
shall be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to
civil services, and for civil posts.
In the present case, we find that the State of Maharashtra has issued
the impugned G.R. dated 22.04.2019, without any consultation or prior
approval by the MPSC, which is evident from the letter dated 11.07.2019
issued by the MPSC to the Government, expressing its disapproval of
the decision taken by the Government unilaterally to make these
appointments without any consultation.
14. Rule 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995
provides that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if in the
opinion of the Government, the exigencies of service require, the ratio
prescribed for appointment by promotion, on the basis of Limited
Departmental Examination or nomination, may be relaxed with the prior
consultation of the Commission.
The Government would be required to establish before the Tribunal
as to whether there were any extra-ordinary circumstances which have
warranted the exercise of power under Rule 5, which may be resorted to
only in rare and exceptional circumstances.
15. The impugned G.R. seeks to fill up double the number of vacancies
which were notified for the LCDE – 2016 by the Circular dated
27.06.2016. It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority
cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as
the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would
be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.
16. The Tribunal has vacated the Order of status quo dated 18.10.2019,
on the ground that two of the Applicants had participated in the
examination, but failed to qualify.
This could not be a justifiable ground to vacate the interim Order,
since the promotional prospects of the Petitioners would be seriously
prejudiced, since a block of 636 additional candidates would be
appointed as Police Sub-Inspectors over and above the Applicants.
17. The other ground on which the Tribunal has vacated the Interim
Order is stated in para 17 of the Order that the Applicants had not
challenged the G.R. dated 22.4.2019.
This is an erroneous observation which would be evident from the
prayers in the O.A. which are set out hereunder for ready reference: –
“(A) Original Application may kindly be allowed by directing the
Respondents to undertake recruitment strictly as per PSI Recruitment
Rules, 1995, without any deviation therefrom
(B) The recruitment by promotion of as many as 636 candidates sought to
be made vide Govt. Resolution dated 22.4.2019, may kindly be quashed
and set aside, the same being contrary to Recruitment Rules as well as
binding precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
€ Pending hearing and final disposal of this Application, the Respondents
No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed not to take any further action in
furtherance of the impugned Govt. Resolution dated 22.4.2019.
(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Application, the Respondents
No.1 to may kindly be directed to maintain status quo in respect of 636
candidates sought to be appointed by promotion, under the Impugned
Govt. Resolution dated 22.4.2019.
€ Any other suitable and equitable relief to which applicants are entitled to
and this Hon’ble Tribunal deems appropriate, may kindly be granted in their
In view thereof, the said observation cannot be a ground for
vacating the interim order of stay granted vide Order dated
18. The third ground on which the Tribunal has vacated the Interim Order
was that in similar O.As challenging the same G.R. dated 22.4.2019,
including O.A. No. 455 of 2019 filed before the Principal Bench, the
Applicants in those cases had withdrawn their respective cases, since
they were desirous of pursuing their representations with the State
This could also not be a justifiable ground for vacating the Order of
status quo merely because other parties had chosen to withdraw their
O.A. for their own reasons.
19. We find that the High Court in the present Writ Petition has issued a
direction to the State to send the additional list of 636 candidates for
training of 9 months during the pendency of proceedings before the
We are of the view that such a direction ought not to have been
passed in the Writ Petition filed by the present Petitioners, who are
aggrieved by the impugned Government Resolution No. Police -1818/
File 355/Pol 5A dated 22.04.2019, which is the subject matter of
20. In view of the discussion hereinabove, we allow the present Civil
Appeal, and direct that Government Resolution No. Police -1818/ File
355/Pol 5A dated 22.4.2019 will remain stayed during the pendency of
proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
We set aside the Order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal which vacated the interim Order 18.10.2019, and
the Order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Bombay High Court in W.P.
No. 15045 / 2019.
21. We direct the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench to
decide the pending O.A. within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of this Order. The Tribunal will ensure that the additional 636
candidates are given notice of the pending O.A. through the State, to
enable them to appear and participate in the proceedings. The Tribunal
is further directed to club all pending Original Applications challenging
the impugned Government Resolution No. Police -1818/ File 355/Pol 5A,
and pass a common Judgment in these cases.
There will be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
February 5th, 2021 ………………………………………………J.