CHAGDEO RUPSING CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The genesis of these petitions dates back over a decade to a period between 1986 and the present date. The petitioners to whom the present petitions relate are police constables who have been seeking to espouse a claim for appointment as Police Sub-Inspectors. They have been attempting to do so since 1986 and have adopted legal proceedings on earlier occasions. In view of the pendency of the disputes between them and the State over a period of time and common question of law involved in all the petitions, we consider it fit to hear the matters at final hearing and to dispose them of by a common Judgment and Order.

(2.) The petitioners are police constables employed by the State of Maharashtra. The subject matter of the present petitions relates to the claim of the petitioners to join a course conducted at the Police Training College, Nashik, which would enable them to seek promotions as Police Sub-Inspectors in the service of the State Government. A Government Resolution had been issued on 30.10.1979 under which a Selection Board was constituted consisting of the Inspector General of Police as Chairman and three Members consisting of (i) the Commissioner of Police or Range Deputy Inspector General of Police. (ii) the Principal of the Police Training College, Nashik and (iii) the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Training and Special Units, Mumbai. The Selection procedure envisaged the holding of a written examination, an outdoor test and an interview at different centres in the State of Maharashtra. The written examination was allotted 300 marks or which three subjects, viz. Essay, General Knowledge and Law each carried 100 marks. The outdoor test and the record of service each carried 50 marks. 100 marks were assigned to the interview. The total number of marks assigned, comprised of 500 marks. Under the Government Resolution of 1979, a minimum percentage of marks for passing was not prescribed and candidates were to be selected in order of merit on the basis of aggregate marks obtained. Subsequently, in pursuance of instructions issued by the Home Department on 29.10.1985, a minimum percentage of 50% marks was required to be obtained by candidates for the outdoor test, service record and interview and 45% each in the three papers of the written examination. A minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate was required to be obtained in order to qualify as a successful candidates. Thereafter, by a Government Resolution dated 20.6.1988, the minimum marks required to be achieved for successfully clearing the interview were reduced from 50% to 40%. On 17.5.1989, a Government Resolution was issued by virtue of which the constitution of the Selection Board was altered. The Selection Board was thereafter to consist of (i) the Addl. Director General of Police (Law & Order) or an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police/Spl. Inspector General of Police to be nominated by the Director General of Police as Chairman of the Board. (ii) the Commissioner of Police or Range Deputy Inspector General of Police from the area where the Board was to sit, (iii) Principal of the Police Training College, Nashik or Dy. Inspector General of Police, Training and Spl. Units Bombay, and (iv) an Officer of the Rank of Dy. Inspector General of Police belonging to the minority community to be nominated by the Director General of Police. The Officer at Sr. Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) above were to act as members.

(3.) The selection process came to be challenged through petitions before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in which a grievance was, inter-alia, made that the Selection Boards which had conducted the interviews were not properly constituted. The grievance in this regard was that the Boards either consisted of less than 4 Members or that the members of the Board did not meet the qualification prescribed under the Government Resolution of 3.10.1979 of 17.5.1989. The Tribunal delivered a common Judgment and Order dated 16.5.1997 in a group of Transferred Applications. It may be mentioned that originally, Writ Petitions had been filed in this Court in the years 1989 and 1990 in which the Selection Process had been impugned. Upon the Constitution of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, these Writ Petitions were transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of these petitions which had earlier originated in this Court together with other Original Applications which were filed direct by before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the contention that there was an infirmity in the Constitution of the Board at certain centres and on some dates on which interviews were held at which the Board consisted of less than 4 members. In view of its decision, the Tribunal held that the Applicants before it who had been interviewed by Boards which were not duly constituted, would be entitled to the relief of a fresh interview. The classification of candidates who were held to be entitled to the benefit of fresh interviews was set out in the Judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its decision declined to grant relief in favour of certain other candidates on the ground that their applications were barred by limitation. The Tribunal noticed that the Applicants included persons who had appeared at the examinations in the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990. In its Judgment, the Tribunal held that a period of three years after 1990 which was the last batch, would be a reasonable period during which applications ought to have been filed at the latest. Consequently, applications filed in the year 1994 and subsequently thereafter, for the first time, were held to be barred by limitation and suffering from delay and laches.