SUNIL RAJARAM GHOSALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed by the Police Constables in service of the State of Maharashtra, challenging the action of the State in not appointing the selected candidates such as petitioners to the post of Police Sub-Inspectors. All these petitions raised identical facts and law and therefore they can be conveniently decided by this common judgment. This judgment shall cover all the cases mentioned in the schedule attached hereto, which shall form part of the judgment.

(2.) FACTS stated briefly, giving rise to the present petitions are that several posts of Police Sub-Inspectors were vacant and therefore State of Maharashtra took a decision of filling them up.

(3.) IN the cadre of Police Sub-Inspectors, 50% posts are filled up by direct recruitment and out of the remaining 50%, 25% are filled in departmental promotions on the basis of seniority and the remaining 25% are to be filled in by holding a departmental competitive examination from amongst the candidates who are serving as Police Constables in the State. It is this selection through competitive examination for these 25% which is in controversy. According to recruitment Rules, in this behalf, holding of such examination is necessary. Till about 1990 this examination was conducted by the department itself. However, the State Government found that the conducting of departmental examination by the department itself was not very proper and several complaints regarding fairness of that examination were received and therefore the State of Maharashtra requested the Maharashtra Public Service Commission to conduct this examination for the purposes of selecting candidates to this 25% posts. It is pertinent to note however in this case that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission was invited only to conduct the examination on behalf of the State of Maharashtra which was being done previously by the State itself. The recommendations of the M. P. S. C. are not strictly speaking invited to what has been done by the Maharashtra State, but to request the M. P. S. C. to hold the competitive departmental examination for and on behalf of the State to enable the State to make selection of the best available candidate. Consultation or opinion of the M. P. S. C. and their active participation in the matter of selection process was therefore not necessary. In effect the M. P. S. C. in the instant case was only examination holding authority, and as a consequential responsibility, it was also the duty of the M. P. S. C. to lay down the standards of the examination, the standards of passing and the standards to be used for selecting the candidates from out of the successful candidates.