DIPTI DIPAK KOLAPKAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Principally a common ground of challenge raised by the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, is whether Maharashtra Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") could introduce the element of minimum marks to be obtained in the written examination as qualifying marks for being called for viva voce test subsequent to issuance of advertisement issued by the said Commission for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division, and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. According to the petitioners, the Commission adopted a criteria different than the one advertised and the Rules of the examination were changed midway. Thus, they pray for quashing and setting aside the entire selection process of the said examination which was conducted in furtherance to the advertisement dated 4th July, 2007 and also pray for issuance of other directions. To substantiate their reliefs claimed, the petitioners also rely upon the principles of reasonable expectancy and promissory estoppal.

(2.) Reference to the basic facts giving rise to this bunch of writ petitions is necessary. While examining the factual matrix, we are not referring to the facts stated in each of the cases. Suffice it to refer to the allegations and the grounds stated in Writ Petition Nos. 3118 of 2008, 4652 of 2008, 4675 of 2008 and 4782 of 2008.

(3.) The petitioners are law graduates who completed their LL.B. Examination during the years 2005-2007 and claim to have secured reasonably good marks in their LL.B. Examination. Thereafter, they enrolled themselves as Advocates with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and are practicing Advocates. On 4th July, 2007, the Deputy Secretary of the Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up 150 vacancies to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The last date for submission of the applications was 3rd August, 2007 and the competitive examination was to be conducted on 6th October, 2007. Corrigendum to the said advertisement dated 4th July, 2007 was issued by the Commission on 25th July, 2007 clarifying the number of posts which was increased by 175. In other words, according to the petitioners, 325 posts were available for recruitment for which the examination was to be conducted. However, the date of the competitive examination was preponed from 6th October, 2007 to 22nd September, 2007. According to the petitioners, they fulfilled all the qualifications prescribed for the said test in terms of Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). The petitioners allege that result of the competitive examination was unduly delayed and the same was declared on 13th March, 2008. In the said result, it was declared that only 163 candidates had qualified for oral examination. The roll numbers of the petitioners did not appear in the list of qualified candidates and the petitioners could not ascertain whether or not they had obtained cut-off marks as fixed by the Commission. It is further case of the petitioners that Clause 2.6.3.1 of the prospectus published by the Commission provided for the examination to be held in two stages, 200 marks for written examination and 60 marks for viva voce test. Clause 2.6.6.1 provides that minimum cut-off line fixed would be such that the candidates available for viva voce test would be two to three times of the total number of posts (vacancies) and the candidates who qualified as per the cut-off line alone would be called for interview. There being 325 posts available, the number of persons who would have to be qualified for interview thus would have been 650 to 975. The Commission's action in calling only 163 applicants on the basis of a cut-off line or qualifying marks is unjust and that the applicants who had secured minimum 50% marks in the written examination had been called for interview.