MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. JEEVAN NIVRUTTIRAO WADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the advertisement published by the petitioner dated 04.07.2015 for filling up 175 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Gr. A, the respondent no.1 applied. The respondent no.1 was at serial no.1 in the wait list. Four candidates issued with the appointment order did not join. The respondent no.1 filed Original Application bearing No.614/2017 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad seeking directions to recommend the name of the applicant therein for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Original Application is allowed under the judgment and order dated 25.09.2018. The petitioner is directed to recommend the name of respondent no.1 for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. The M.P.S.C. assailed the said judgment in the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the results were declared on 16.09.2016. The recommendation was made for 174 candidates. Thereafter, on 28.09.2016 additional amended recommendation list was sent to the Government by the petitioner. Five candidates who were issued the appointment order did not join. The learned counsel submits that the wait list can be operated for a period of one year from the date of declaration of result or up to the publication of the subsequent advertisement for recruitment to the concerned post whichever is earlier. The learned counsel relies on the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014. More particularly, Clause 10 (8) (a). The learned counsel submits that as the results were declared on 16.09.2016, the wait list lapsed on 15.09.2017. After the said date, no candidate from the wait list could as of right claim appointment. The learned counsel to buttress his submission relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineer's Association Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591. The learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Pankajkumar C. Dabhire & Ors. in Writ petition No.5621 of 2015 dated 03.07.2018 submits that after lapse of one year, the wait list could not have been operated. According to the learned counsel, the requisition was made by the State Government after the lapse of one year of the declaration of the result and as per Rule 10 (8) (a) of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014, the petitioner could not have forwarded the name of the candidates from the wait list. The Tribunal did not consider the said Rules in its correct perspective and thereby arrived at erroneous conclusion.

(3.) The learned counsel further submits that even a candidate whose name is included in the merit list has no vested right to be appointed and the date of one year has to be calculated from the date of publication of result. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of U.P. Vs. Bibhakar Dwivedit and Others reported in (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 62.