DILIP BABASAHEB BHOSALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Returnable after six weeks. Respondents waive service.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Gorwadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the prayer for interim relief. Also heard Mr. Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the Maharashtra Public Service Commission ("M.P.S.C."), Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate General, appearing for the High Court and Mr. Apte, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State Government. The learned counsel for the M.P.S.C. as also the State Government and the High Court agreed about the urgency of filling of 250 vacant posts of Civil Judges, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrates, First Class. All of them appreciated the great harm that is being caused to the administration of justice because of so many posts lying vacant for quite some time. Mr. Saraf, learned counsel for the M.P.S.C. stated that the M.P.S.C. is very keen to complete the process of selection of the candidates. He also pointed out the circumstances because of which the vacancies could not be filled up so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondents agreed that it is most essential to find out some way out to have some agreed arrangement to ensure filling up of these 250 vacancies without any further delay. The learned counsel for the M.P.S.C. pointed out the confusion about the reservation which has caused the stalemate. The learned Advocate General appearing for the High Court submitted that there is no reservation in judicial posts. The High Court follows the reservation policy of the State only in spirit. He, therefore, submitted that the reservation policy as such does not apply to the appointment to the judicial posts. All these issues will be examined at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. For the present, after deliberations with the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Apte, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State Government, Mr.Saraf, learned counsel for the M.P.S.C. and Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate General appearing for the High Court, we find that some interim arrangement is possible. So far as the reservation is concerned, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney V. Union of India, A.I.R. 1993, Supreme Court, 477 which lays down that the reservation should not exceed 50 % of the appointments, the learned counsel for the M.P.S.C. and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State, are agreed that without prejudice to the contention of the High Court that the reservation policy is not applicable to judicial services, as an interim measure, an advertisement can be published for filling up of 250 posts of Civil Judges, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrates, First Class with 50 % reservation as follows:

(3.) THE learned Advocate Central appearing for the High Court assured the Court that all help and co-operation will be rendered by the High Court to the M.P.S.C. in completing the process of selection of the candidates as per the schedule furnished by the M.P.S.C. to this Court. Mr. Saraf, learned counsel for the M.P.S.C. further stated that to avoid any delay in completion of the examination process, the examination will have to be held only at Bombay. He seeks permission of this Court for that purpose. We are satisfied about the sincerity of the M.P.S.C. as also the State Government. In that view of the matter, we accept the above suggestions for interim order an pass interim orders in the above terms.