MEENAL SHASHIKANT JOGLEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, a challenge has been raised to the common judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') dtd. 31/07/2015 in Original Application Nos.4 of 2011 and 5 of 2011. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the selection and appointment of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7920 of 2015 on the post of District Information Officer, Group-A (Junior) has been quashed and the Department of Public Relations, State of Maharashtra has been directed to conduct a fresh process of selection for four posts from the open category of District Information Officer. The State of Maharashtra through its Department of Public Relations being aggrieved by the said common judgment has also challenged the same in Writ Petition No.1890 of 2017.

(2.) Facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised are that on 11/02/2008, the Director General of Information and Public Relations issued Advertisement No.2 of 2008 wherein eight posts of District Information Officer were advertised. One post was reserved for candidates from the Schedule Castes Category, three posts were reserved for candidates from the Other Backward Class Category and four posts were kept for candidates from the Open Category. Of these four posts, three posts were reserved for women and one post was reserved for sport-persons. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.7920 of 2015 (for short, 'the selected candidates') had participated in the recruitment process. The respondent no.3 in the said writ petition (for short, 'the aggrieved candidate') was aged about 37 years when the advertisement was issued. The upper age limit prescribed for candidates who were not in Government service was 35 years. The upper age limit could be relaxed under Rule 7 of the Director (Information Officer), Deputy Director (Information), Senior Sub- Editor, Senior Assistant Director, District Information Officer and Public Relations Officer (Grade-A) and Assistant Director (Grade-B) in the Directorate General of Information and Public Relations (Recruitment) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Recruitment Rules of 1994'). As the aggrieved candidate was not called for the written examination, he had filed Writ Petition No.3419 of 2008 at the Aurangabad Bench of this Court. Pursuant an interim order passed in the said writ petition on 16/05/2008, the aggrieved candidate appeared for the written examination and scored 62 out of 100 marks. The selected candidates scored 68, 59 and 57 marks respectively. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal. The aggrieved candidate thereafter filed Original Application No.410 of 2008 seeking a declaration as regards his entitlement to age relaxation. In the meanwhile, on 03/07/2008 the General Administration Department issued an order appointing the selected candidates on the post of District Information Officer. The aggrieved candidate being aggrieved by their selection preferred Original Application No.5 of 2011.

(3.) The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions found that the candidature of the aggrieved candidate was wrongly rejected in view of breach of Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules. It held that three posts from the Open Category were wrongly reserved for women as only one post could have been reserved and that the reservation of one post from open category for sport persons was also wrong. It further found that the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate produced by two successful candidates were incorrect and that without verifying the same, their candidature was considered. On these grounds, the selection of the selected candidates was held to be illegal and thus quashed. A direction was issued to conduct a fresh process of selection for four posts of District Information Officer from the open category afresh. The application for age relaxation preferred by the aggrieved candidate was directed to be decided as per Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules. This common judgment is assailed in these writ petitions.