LexHARISH MAGANLAL BAIJAL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.~ .. A B [2010] 6 S.C.R. 466 HARISH MAGANLAL BAIJAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (SLP (C) No. 6556 of 2008) MAY 7, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Service Law: c Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation and Seniority) Rules, 1982 - Rule 4(2) - Seniority of recruits selected in one batch - 22 posts of DSP - First 14 meant for candidates from open stream and remaining 8 for reserved candidates - Petitioner unable to qualify in the exam and placed after the 0 list of successful candidates - Petitioner appointed as Sa/es Tax Officer which was his second preference - Out of the original selected candidates, three found ineligible for the post - Appointment of petitioner to the post of DSP - Publication of provisional gradation/seniority list - Seniority list, E challenged by petitioner - Claim of seniority over candidates who had been selected at the initial stage - Rejected by tribunal as a/so High Court - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Selection of petifioner along with two other candidates as substituted candidates in place of the ineligible candidates, was under fortuitous circumstance$ - Petitioner F was brought in as a replacement candidate, not from any waiting list, but from the list of successful candidates in the examination held as per marks obtained by them, on basis of the representation made by him - Thus, Rufe 4(2) not applicable and petitioner's seniority to be reckoned only from G the date of his joining his duties as DSP - Maharashtra State Service (Main), Examination, 1990. The Maharashtra State Service (Main), Examination, 1990 was held for the filling up of 22 posts of Deputy H 466 HARISH MAGANLAL BAIJAL v. STATE OF 467 MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of A Police. Out of the said posts, the first 14 posts were for candidates from the open category and 8 posts were· reserved for candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories. The petitioner appeared for the exam. He scored 604 marks and could not qualify for one of the 14 vacancies B in the open category and was placed immediately after the list of successful candidates. The petitioner was appointed as Sales Tax Officer, which was his second preference. Out of the candidates selected in the post of CSP, 3 candidates were found to be physically unfit for c the post. On representation by the petitioner, he was appointed to the post of CSP as a replacement candidate. Thereafter, the provisional gradation/seniority list was published. The petitioner was placed at seria.1 no. 238 which was below the last candidate out of the 22 selected 0 candidates. T, though scored lower marks than the petitioner was placed above the petitioner. K who had joined the service along with the petitioner was given seniority with effect from 15th July, 1992, along with the other batch mates of 1990. The petitioner made a representation to the State Public Service Commission E challenging the seniority list. The representation was rejected. The petitioner filed an application, and the tribunal dismissed the same. The High Court upheld the order. Hence, the Special Leave Petition. F Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal as upheld by the High Court. Admittedly, out of all the 22 vacant posts, the first 14 posts G were to be filled up by candidates from the open category and the remaining 8 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. The last candidate to be included in the first 14 vacancies had obtained 610 marks, whereas the petitioner had obtained H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R. A 604 marks. In between the last candidate and the petitioner there were 3 other candidates who had obtained 608, 607 and 605 marks, respectively, so that, in any event, even if the 3 ineligible candidates had been excluded from the very beginning, the petitioner still B could not have been included among the first 14 candidates, particularly when one of the ineligible candidates was from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category. [Para 16] [475-H; 476-A-C] 1.2. The selection of the petitioner along with two C other candidates as substituted candidates in place of the three ineligible candidates, was under fortuitous circumstances since the original selection had already been made and in keeping with the marks obtaine
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.