MOHAN RUPA GHEGAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bunch of four petitions which contains the identical question can well be disposed of by a common judgment and which is acceptable to both the sides. We are tempted to observe even at the threshold that the impugned order in all the petitions is almost shockingly un-sustainable by any yardstick. The factual structure in all the petitions is practically identical and the nature of contentions is also the same.

(2.) ALL the petitioners have been working as Police Constables in State Police Force and were posted at different places. There are two avenues open for the promotional post of Sub-Inspector, one from the Department and one from the Channel of Public Service Commission. All the petitioners have staked their claim through the Channel of Departmental promotion. This pertained to the batch for 1988. At that time 120 posts were declared for being filled in through this channel from the Departmental promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. Out of those 98 posts were filed in by the Department. A short table of events would give clear idea in that behalf. Initially a written examination was fixed which contains three subjects namely Essay, General Knowledge and Law and for each subject 100 marks are allotted. Passing of this examination in these three subjects is the necessary requirement. This written examination was held on 12th and 13th of February, 1988. It is an accepted position that all these petitioners had successfully passed in all the three subjects in this written examination. Consequently, therefore, a wireless message was sent by respondent No. 2 on 30th of March, 1988 directing the officers to intimate to all these petitioners to remain present for the further test namely for outdoor test and interview. This was obviously on the footing that they had passed the written examination. 50 marks are allotted for the outdoor test and 100 marks are allotted for the interview. All the petitioners appeared in pursuance of this requisition and all of them passed both the tests namely the outdoor test and the interview. These petitioners actually appeared for these tests on 5th April, 1988. However, before they were declared to be successful a very interesting event occurred which has given rise to this proceeding the validity of which order can hardly be sustained. A wireless message was issued on behalf respondent No. 2 on 17th April, 1988. It is firmly reflected in that message by way of direction that in so far as the written test in the subject of Essay it was decided to have a fresh or re-examination of that subject only. The said direction does not stop at that but goes a step further making it clear that not only the candidates who have failed in first attempt but those who have been declared successful in that very subject in the examination already held had to appear for this re-examination in that subject and that subject and that re-examination was fixed on 5th of May, 1988. All the petitioners were practically perplexed by this mandate issued by respondent No. 2 more because absolutely no reason was even whispered therein for holding re-examination. However, under the circumstances they felt obliged to appear for re-examination in Essay subject and thus they faithfully appeared. However, as the luck would have it all of them failed in the Essay subject in the re-examination though admittedly they had passed in the examination that was already held in that subject. This obviously entailed into serious consequences against them because the further avenues opened for them as being required to be sent for the training, etc. , for the promotional post of P. S. I. had come to a stand-still and thus they have been denied the said promotion, though as stated, by that time they had already passed outdoor test and the interview which was subsequent to the written examination meaning thereby that their success in the subsequent tests was also practically wiped out.

(3.) IT is this order that is being placed under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by all the petitioners in this bunch of four petitions.