SANTOSH SHRIRAM GAWHANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since identical challenges are raised in these writ petitions, they have been heard together by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith.

(2.) In Writ Petition No.2202/2021 it is the case of the petitioners that they are Graduate Engineers. They have been appointed as Assistant Engineer (Grade-I) in the year 2002 after their selection by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC). Since then they are discharging their duties with MJP. The promotional post of Executive Engineer is required to be filled in through four feeder posts which include Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer (Grade-I), Sub-Divisional Engineer (Graduate Engineer) and Sub-Divisional Engineer (Diploma Holder). The same has been provided in Government Resolution dtd. 19/12/1970. These petitioners became eligible for promotion after acquiring seven years ' experience. The petitioners along with other eligible candidates appeared in the DPE that was held in October 2003. In the result declared on 05/12/2003 all 26 candidates were declared to have failed. 13 of these candidates including the petitioners were direct recruits having been selected and recommended through MPSC. The MJP took note of the aforesaid result and directed its Chief Administrative Officer to recheck/revalue the marks obtained by each candidate. Pursuant thereto the concerned Superintending Engineer was directed to receive applications along with requisite fees from the concerned candidates who had appeared in the DPE. The petitioners accordingly submitted their applications with requisite fees. The Committee was set up by MJP along with subject experts to examine the answer-sheets and upon revaluation it increased the marks of the candidates including the petitioners. The report of the subject experts was placed before the Committee set up by MJP which accepted the same. The petitioners were accordingly informed on 24/04/2004 that they had passed the DPE. Those candidates who were not declared to be successful after revaluation were required to appear and pass the said examination again.

(3.) The petitioners claim that they were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2010. In the 129th Board Meeting of MJP held on 28/01/2013, the issue of increase in marks during re-verification was discussed. As per Item No.9 therein the Board decided that due to passage of considerable time, it would not be practicable to re-consider the decision to constitute a Committee for re-verification of the marks obtained in the DPE. Hence the benefit of increase in marks as granted to 49 Engineers did not deserve to be withdrawn. By majority the said resolution was passed. It however appears that on 16/05/2015 the Principal Secretary, Water Supply and Sanitation Department issued a communication to the Member Secretary, MJP that there was no provision for re-verification of the marks obtained by a candidate in the DPE. This action on the part of MJP was not in accordance with the prevailing Rules. It was further stated that though the Board of Directors of MJP had no authority to condone such action that was contrary to the Rules, the same had been done by passing a resolution. The Member Secretary, MJP was therefore called upon to justify the said action and was further directed that if such action was not supported by any Rules, the same should be cancelled. In response, the Member Secretary, MJP on 26/05/2017 informed the Principal Secretary, Water Supply and Sanitation Department that the decision taken to re-verify the marks received by the candidates in the DPE appeared to be proper and the concerned candidates were not at fault in that regard. At the request of the unsuccessful candidates the answer papers had been re-verified by appointing a Committee. After conduct of the said DPE a period of more than fifteen years had elapsed. Some candidates had been further promoted and therefore reverting them would result in administrative difficulties and possible litigation. It was therefore recommended that no adverse action be taken in the matter. The Water Supply and Sanitation Department was not satisfied with the said response and hence sought further explanation from the MJP in the said matter.