Maharashtra Public Service Commission By And Through The Secretary vs Chetan Shankar Niwalkar And Anr

CNR No : HCBM010080212026

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
Rekha Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 OF 2026
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
By and through the Secretary,
Trishul Gold Field, Plot No. 34,
Sector – 11, Opp. Sarovar Vihar,

CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614.
…Petitioner
Versus
1. Chetan Shankar Niwalkar
Building No.1, B-Wing, Flat No. 301,
Sakshi Park 3, CHS, Akurli, Tal Panvel,
District Raigad 410 206.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Deputy Secretary (Fisheries)
Padum Department, Mantralay,
Mumbai 400 032.
…Respondents
Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni with Mr. Hrutik Chavan & Mr. Soham
Salunke, for the Petitioner-MPSC.
Mr. Akshay P. Jadhav with Ms. Manjula Chakravarty, for the
Respondent No.1.
Ms. P. J. Gavhane, Assistant Government Pleader with Mr. A. I.
Patel, Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondent
No.2-State.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON: 16 OCTOBER, 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 30 OCTOBER, 2026
REKHA
PRAKASH
PATIL
JUDGMENT : (Per SUMAN SHYAM, J. )
Digitally signed
by REKHA
PRAKASH PATIL
Date: 2026.10.30
16:10:41 +0530
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. In this Writ Petition filed by the Maharashtra Public Service
rd
Commission (for short “MPSC”), the Judgment and Order dated 3
October, 2025, passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), Mumbai Bench, in Original
Application No. 151 of 2025 with Miscellaneous Application No.
98 of 2025, has been put under challenge inter alia on the ground
that the directions issued by the learned Tribunal for
recommending the Applicant’s name for appointment to the post of
“Fisheries Development Officer, Group-B” as an OBC (general
candidate), is erroneous, illegal and hence, unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
st
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 31
January, 2020, the Petitioner (MPSC) had issued Advertisement
Notice bearing No. 04 of 2020 inviting applications for filling up as
many as 27 posts of Fisheries Development Officer (‘FDO’), Group-
B. As per the Advertisement Notice, 4 out of the 27 posts were
reserved for being filled up by OBC Category Candidates. Out of
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
these 4 posts, one OBC Category post was further reserved for a
female candidate. In other words, one out of the four OBC
Category Posts was reserved for female candidate. That apart, as
per the advertisement, one post was required to be reserved for
Persons with Disabilities (PwD). As such, out of the 4 posts
reserved for the OBC Candidate, 1 (one) was for women OBC
Candidate. That apart, 1 (one) post in the OBC Category
Candidate was kept reserved for PwD Category Candidate.
4. The Respondent No.1 (Original Applicant), viz., Shri Chetan
Shankar Niwalkar, had submitted his candidature for the post of
FDO as an OBC (General) Candidate. It appears that on
th
completion of the selection process, merit list was prepared on 15
September, 2023, and the recommendations were sent by the
th
MPSC on 10 October, 2023. In the merit list, the name of the
Respondent No.1 appeared in Sr. No. 42, as an OBC (General)
Male Candidate, he having scored 112.50 marks in total. The
name of one Musane Amol Sanjiv, having scored 84.50 marks in
total, appeared at Sr. No. 107 of the final merit list, as a Male OBC
Category Candidate. However, in the column of ‘Other Reservation’
it was indicated against the name of this candidate that he was
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
suffering from “Visual Impairment”, thus indicating that he belongs
to the PwD Category as well. Likewise, the name of one Pranay
Bhadade, who had scored 80.50 marks in total, was listed at Sr.
No. 110, as a Male OBC Candidate, but he was also a candidate
with “Visual Impairment”. In between Musane Amol Sanjiv and
Pranay Bhadade, there was no other Male OBC Candidate of PwD
category.
5. It further appears from the material on record that after the
select list was published and appointment order was issued in
favour of Musane Amol Sanjiv, he was promoted to the post of FDO
through the departmental promotional avenue, in which post, he
th
had joined on 11 June, 2024. As such, the vacancy earmarked for
‘OBC Open Category Candidate’ with ‘Visual Impairment’ (PwD)
was eventually not filled up by Musane Amol Sanjiv.
th
6. On 12 June, 2024, the Respondent No.1/Original Applicant
submitted a representation seeking recommendation of his name
for the post of FDO as OBC (General) Category Candidate. Such
representation was followed up by the representations by dated
th th
14 August, 2024 and 24 September, 2024. Since no response to
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
his representations was received by the Respondent No.1, hence,
he had instituted Original Application before the learned Tribunal
th
on 7 February, 2025. The Original Application was allowed by
rd
the Tribunal by the impugned Judgment dated 3 October, 2025
with a direction upon the Petitioner to recommend his name for
appointment as FDO as an OBC (General) Category Candidate
against the post reserved for the OBC category. Assailing the
rd
Judgment and Order dated 3 October, 2025, the MPSC is before
this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
7. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner has argued that the vacancy against which the
candidature of Musane Amol Sanjiv was considered was not only
reserved for the OBC candidate, but it was also the vacancy
reserved for the PwD Category Candidate, which in the present
case, was for a person with ‘Visual Impairment’. However, since
Musane Amol Sanjiv was promoted to the post of FDO by the
Departmental Channel, the aforesaid post, according to Mr.
Kulkarni, was not filled up from the select list. In the meantime,
the validity of waiting list/merit list has expired. Mr. Kulkarni
further argued that the requisition from the Government to make
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
recommendation for the vacant post of OBC Category reached the
th
MPSC only on 12 December, 2024, i.e., after the expiry of the
th
select list/waiting list on 9 October, 2024. However, even in the
said requisition of the Government, the Petitioner was asked to
recommend a candidate belonging to the PwD Category. Therefore,
even if the recommendation was to be made by the MPSC, the
same could not have been in favour of the Respondent
No.1/Original Applicant, since he did not belong to the PwD
Category with low vision.
rd
8. Referring to the impugned Judgment dated 3 October,
2025, passed by the learned Tribunal, Mr. Kulkarni has further
argued that the impugned Judgment is not based on any cogent
reason but the same has been passed on the basis of an erroneous
interpretation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
1
rendered in a case of State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. vs. Sat Pal ,
whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had invoked jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and passed an order
in order to do complete justice. On such count, Mr. Kulkarni has
1 (2013) 11 SCC 737
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order passed
by the learned Tribunal.
9. Supporting the arguments of the Petitioner’s Counsel, Mr.
Gavhane, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent No.2-State,
has argued that the vacancy in question was reserved for an OBC
Candidate belonging to PwD Category, which is apparent even
th
from the Government requisition dated 12 December, 2024.
Therefore, no directions to recommend the name of the Original
Applicant/Respondent No.1 could have been issued by the learned
Tribunal for filling up the said vacancy which was reserved for OBS
(PwD) category candidate.
10. Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.1, on the other hand, has supported the decision of the learned
Tribunal by contending that since Musane Amol Sanjiv, who was an
OBC Category Candidate with physical disability was promoted
through the departmental channel, hence, the resultant vacancy
ought to have been filled up by appointing the Respondent No.1/
Original Applicant since he is an OBC Category Candidate,
securing higher marks. Contending that, neither Musane Amol
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
Sanjiv nor Pranay Bhadade had a valid Non Creamy Layer
Certificate, Mr. Jadhav has submitted that none of them could have
been appointed against the posts reserved for the OBC Category.
11. By referring to the observations made in the impugned
rd
Judgment and Order dated 3 October, 2025, Mr. Jadhav has
argued that the Original Applicant/Respondent No.1 had made out
a strong case on merit. In view of the successive representations
submitted by him before the Authorities, the Original Applicant
cannot be held responsible for delay, if any, in approaching the
Tribunal. As such, the Writ Petition be dismissed.
12. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
Counsel for the contesting parties and have also gone through the
material available on record.
13. In the present case, we are concerned only with the four
posts of FDO, which were reserved for the OBC Category
Candidates. Out of these four posts, one post was reserved for
OBC Female Candidate and one for OBC PwD Candidate.
Therefore, there were only two posts left for the OBC (General)
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
Category which could have been filled up by operating the
merit/select list. Against the aforesaid two posts, the names of two
OBC (General) Category Candidates, viz., Abhinav Ashok
Vaichalkar and Rishikesh Dattatray Thakare, who had scored
higher marks than the Respondent No.1, were recommended. The
name of Musane Amol Sanjiv was recommended as an OBC
(General) PwD Category Candidate. The Respondent No. 1 did not
raise any objection to such recommendation. However, Musane
Amol Sanjiv was ultimately promoted to the post of FDO.
14. As has been noted herein-above, the Advertisement Notice
itself made it clear that one post would be kept reserved for the
PwD Category Candidate. Accordingly, one OBC post was kept
reserved for PwD Category. The Original Applicant has not
challenged the said assertion of the MPSC. Therefore, he cannot
now raise any grievance in that regard. We say so because the
recommendation of Shri. Musane Amol Sanjiv, who had scored
lower marks than the Original Applicant, but his name was
recommended as an OBC (General) Candidate by showing him as
a person with Visual Impairment (PwD), was never assailed by the
Respondent. The Original Applicant had evidently accepted the
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
position that one post is OBC Category was reserved for PwD
Candidates. He did not stake any claim against the said post until
th
such time Musane Amol Sanjiv was promoted as FDO on 11 June,
2024. It is only after Musane Amol Sanjiv’s promotion to the post
of FDO that the Original Applicant had submitted his
th
representation on 12 June, 2024, staking a claim against the said
post for appointment on the basis of the Select List.
15. In the above context, it will be pertinent to note herein that
reservation for persons with disability falls under Clause (1) of the
Article 16 and is a “horizontal reservation”. Such “horizontal
reservation”, which cuts across “vertical reservation”, can be
provided in any category or vacancies, including OBC Category, as
in the present case. The law on the above subject has been settled
by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case
2
of Indra Sawhney & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. The relevant
observations made in paragraph 812 of the said decision are
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“812. We are also of the opinion that this rule of 50%
applies only to reservations in favour of backward
classes made under Article 16(4). A little clarification
2 1992 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 217
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
is in order at this juncture: all reservations are not
of the same nature. There are two types of
reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience,
be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and
'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
backward classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called
vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of
physically handicapped under clause (1) of Article 16]
can be referred to as horizontal reservations.
Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical
reservations what is called interlocking reservations.
To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are
reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons;
this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of
Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will
be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to
SC category he will be placed in that quota by making
necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open
competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that
category by making necessary adjustments. Even after
providing for these horizontal reservations, the
percentage of reservations in favour of backward class
of citizens remains and should remain the same. This
is how these reservations are worked out in several
States and there is no reason not to continue that
procedure.”
16. Apart from the above, the Petitioner had consistently taken
the stand that no recommendation for appointment could be made
th
after the select list dated 10 October, 2023 had lapsed. By
inviting our attention to Rule 10(8)(b) of “The Maharashtra Public
Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014”, the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the select list and/or
the waiting list had lapsed on the expiry of one year from the date
of declaration of the result.
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
17. In the present case, there is no subsequent advertisement for
the posts. Therefore, as per Rule 10(8)(b) the reserved list would
lapse8 on the expiry of one year from the date of declaration of the
result. There is no controversy about the fact that the results were
th
declared on 10 October, 2023. If that be so, the merit/reserved
th
list had evidently expired on 9 October, 2024 by operation of the
Rules, which fact has also been duly noted by the learned Tribunal.
Under such circumstances, we fail to understand, as to on what
basis, the learned Tribunal has issued the directions to recommend
the name of the Original Applicant/ Respondent No.1 for
appointment to the post of FDO, from an expired select list.
18. We have also noticed that the learned Tribunal has placed
reliance on paragraph 11 of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sat Pal (supra), which is reproduced
herein-below for ready reference.
“11. In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, the
reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the
respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is
clearly unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only
after the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have
been completed. A waiting list would commence to operate,
when offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging
on the top of the merit list. The existence of a waiting list, allows
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
room to the appointing authority to fill up vacancies which arise
during the subsistence of the waiting list. A waiting list
commences to operate, after the vacancies for which the
recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up. In
the instant controversy the aforesaid situation for operating the
waiting list had not arisen, because one of the posts of Junior
Engineer (Civil), Grade-II for which the recruitment process was
conducted was actually never filled up. For the reason that
Trilok Nath had not assumed charge, one of the posts for which
the process of recruitment was conducted, had remained vacant.
That apart, even if it is assumed for arguments sake, that all the
posts for which the process of selection was conducted were
duly filled up, it cannot be disputed that Trilok Nath who had
participated in the same selection process as the respondent
herein, was offered appointment against the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil), Grade-II on 22-4-2008. The aforesaid offer was
made consequent upon his selection in the said process of
recruitment. The validity of the waiting list, in the facts of this
case, has to be determined with reference to 22-4-2008, because
the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on 22-4-2008. It is the
said vacancy, for which the respondent had approached the High
Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the acknowledged position
recorded by the appellants in the impugned order dated
23-8-2011 (extracted above), that the waiting list was valid till
May 2008. If Trilok Nath was found eligible for appointment
against the vacancy in question out of the same waiting list, the
respondent herein would be equally eligible for appointment
against the said vacancy. This would be the unquestionable legal
position, in so far as the present controversy is concerned.”
In the case of Sat Pal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
19.
has declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India and instead, exercised powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India, which is a jurisdiction exclusively
available to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for passing order for doing
complete justice. Notwithstanding the same and despite being
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
conscious of the fact that the observations and directions issued by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision were in exercise of
powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
the learned Tribunal has relied upon the said decision and by
following the same, has issued the impugned directions.
20. T he decision in Sat Pal (supra), is clearly distinguishable on
facts as would be apparent from paragraph 11 of the said decision.
The question therein was pertaining to the date on which the
waiting list would commence to operate. The observations made
therein were clearly on the facts and circumstances of that case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had clarified that the decision
rendered in that case was under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India in order to do complete justice. Therefore, there was no
scope for the learned Tribunal to hold that the decision in the case
of Sat Pal (supra) would lay down a binding precedent permitting
the learned Tribunal to issue the impugned directions.
21. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which deserves a
mention herein. As has been noted herein-above, Shri. Pranay
Bhadade was also a candidate of OBC (General) Category with
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
Visual Impairment, placed just under Musane Amol Sanjiv in the
select list. He was also a candidate from PwD Category. The
Original Applicant has taken a plea that since the said candidate
did not have an NCL Certificate, hence, he was not eligible for
being appointed against the said post. The aforesaid assertion, of
the Original Applicant, in our considered view, is not tenable in
law since the Original Applicant has not impleaded Pranay
Bhadade as a party in his Original Application. Having initially
accepted the fact that the post in question had been ear-marked for
OBC Category Candidate with Visual Impairment (PwD), the
Original Applicant could not have prayed for a direction for his
appointment against the said vacancy without impleading the OBC
General (PwD) Category Candidate in his Original Application.
Viewed from that angle also, we find that the Original Application
itself was incompetent on account of non-joinder of necessary
party and therefore, the impugned directions could not have been
issued by the learned Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of
this case.
22. For the reasons stated herein-above, the Writ Petition
succeeds and is hereby allowed.
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00

J-WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 0F 2026.DOC
rd
23. The Judgment and Order dated 3 October, 2025 is
accordingly quashed and set aside.
24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
25. The parties to bear their own costs.
( GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 16:21:00
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)