VINAYAK TARACHAND DAVARE Vs. M.V. SURYAVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point for determination in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the constitutionality of the criteria evolved by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resulting in the exclusion of the petitioner from being interviewed for selection to the post of a Ward Officer as per the advertisement dated October 14, 1985.

(2.) THE question formulated above requires consideration in the following background:

(3.) THE only reason for petitioner's exclusion was that he did not comply with the following criteria: Candidates working under the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay holding non -technical posts should have at least total 10 years administrative, executive or supervisory experience in a responsible capacity of which 5 years should be in a post carrying pay -scale in the minimum of which is Rs. 920/ - or more., The petitioner contends that the requirement that he should have completed 5 years in a post carrying a pay -scale, the minimum of which is Rs. 920/ -or more, to be eligible for being considered for the post of a Ward Officer, was arbitrary and irrational. These who were previously his equals had suddenly became eligible for consideration, whereas he, the more deserving than them, had become disqualified by the evolution of an irrational qualification. The reply is that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission has a right to evolve a rational method for short -listing, where the applications are disproportionately large qua the number of posts to be filled, and that the criterion where under petitioner came to be excluded is perfectly reasonable. There is no merit in the reply given by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission and the petition is allowed for the reasons given below: