SACHIN BALASAHEB RANER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:8581-DB
432-24-WP.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 432 OF 2024
Sachin S/o. Balasaheb Raner,
Age: 34 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Plot No.47, Madhava Nivas,
Ramdas Nagar, Karegaon Road,
Parbhani. … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Agricultural Department,
Manatralaya, Mumbai.
2. The District Collector,
Parbhani, District Parbhani.
3. The Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation)
and District Rehabilitation Officer,
Parbhani, Collector Office,
Parbhani.
4. The Vasantrao Naik Marathwada
Agricultural University Parbhani (VNMKV)
Through its Registrar,
Administrative Building Basmat Road,
Kalikaman, Parbhani.
5. The Registrar VNMAU, Parbhani,
Kalikaman Basmat Road, Parbhani.
6. The Selection Committee
in respect of Advertisement
No.VNMKV-1/2014 dated 25.11.2014
Through its Member Secretary,
Assistant Registrar (Administration),
VNMKV, Parbhani.

432-24-WP.odt
{2}
7. Kapil S/o. Pralhadrao Nivral,
Age: 33 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Nirvat Nivas, Maruti Nagar,
Selu, Tq. Selu, Dist. Parbhani.
Presently: Office of Associate Dean
and Principal, Agricultural College,
Vasantrao Naik Marathwada
Agricultural University, Parbhani. … Respondents
......
Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3
Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6
Mr. M.V. Solunke, Advocate for Respondent No.7
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 03 FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26 FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
presents a matter which, though arising out of an individual service
claim, raises issues of institutional discipline, fidelity to judicial orders,
and the limits of administrative authority when confronted with binding
directions of a constitutional court. The petitioner challenges the
communication dated 15.09.2023 issued by Respondent No. 5, the
Registrar of Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani,

432-24-WP.odt
{3}
whereby his candidature for the post of Agricultural Assistant
(Graduate) under the horizontal reservation for Project Affected Persons
(PAP) from the General category has been rejected. The petitioner also
assails the subsequent corrigendum dated 07.06.2023, by which the
appointment of Respondent No. 7 was sought to be altered in its
category classification.
3. The factual matrix, when stated sequentially, reveals a persistent
failure of the authorities to adhere to statutory mandate and judicial
discipline. Land belonging to the petitioner’s grandfather, bearing
Survey No. 26/1 at Village Balsa (Kh), Parbhani, was acquired for the
establishment of the Agricultural University. A Project Affected Person
(PAP) certificate was duly issued in favour of the petitioner’s
grandmother on 22.09.1989 by the competent authority. It is
undisputed that no member of the family has availed service benefit
under the said certificate. Upon application and after due verification,
the petitioner’s name was entered as nominee on 30.05.2007. The
validity of the certificate has never been questioned or cancelled.
4. On 25.11.2014, the respondent university issued an
advertisement for 47 posts of Agricultural Assistant (Graduate). Out of
these, two posts were reserved horizontally for Project Affected Persons,
one for Scheduled Caste PAP and one for General PAP. Clause 24 of the

432-24-WP.odt
{4}
advertisement specifically prescribed 25.12.2014 as the cut-off date for
satisfying eligibility conditions. Clause 24 of the advertisement reads
thus:
ß24- vtZnkjkus vtZ dsysY;k inkdfjrk vko’;d ‘kS{k.khd vgZrk]
vuqHko] o; bR;knh ckchaph iwrZrk vtZ fLodkj.;kP;k ‘ksoVP;k
fnukadkl Eg.ktsp fnukad 25-12-2017 i;Zar fopkjkr ?ksrys
tkbZy-Þ
5. The petitioner, being a graduate in Agriculture from the
respondent university and possessing a valid PAP certificate pertaining
to the very establishment for which land had been acquired, submitted
application under the General PAP category of same establishment. The
petitioner appeared for the examination and secured 142 marks.
Respondent No. 7 secured 152 marks. In the initial selection list, the
petitioner’s name did not find place in the selected candidates. Upon
objection, a revised list was published. It is the petitioner’s categorical
case that he was the only candidate possessing a PAP certificate from
the same establishment under the General category, and that the
vacancy reserved for such category remained available for appointment.
6. Apprehending favoritism and illegal approach of authorities in
appointing Respondent No. 7, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing Writ Petition No. 8479 of 2019. By a reasoned judgment dated
14.10.20222, this Court set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 7

432-24-WP.odt
{5}
and directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s
candidature for appointment, if found fit and eligible, with effect from
06.08.2019 and with consequential benefits except back wages. In the
said judgment in Writ Petition No. 8479 of 2019, this Court held as
under:
“ 16. On account of the impugned action of the respondent-
university, both the posts reserved for PAP have been filled from non
university-PAPs. This not only violates the specific stipulation in the
advertisement, but is violative of the provision of Section 6 of the Act
of 1999.”
17. We are therefore of a considered view that the respondent-
university ought to have reserved one out of the two posts available
from PAP category for university-PAP. Since one post in S.C. category
was already filled in before filing of the petition, the remaining post in
general/open category ought to have been given to the university-PAP.
We therefore hold that the appointment of the respondent No. 4,
being a non-university project affected candidate is in violation of the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1999 as well as specific
stipulation in the advertisement.
18. Mere appointment of the petitioner in another establishment
on temporary basis or continuance of the respondent No. 4 on the
post for three years would not be a reason to deny the relief to the
petitioner. He cannot be denied regular and permanent appointment
only on account he being engaged on temporary basis in another
establishment or because the respondent No. 4 has been working on
the post for three years. In fact, the respondent-university ought not
to have made appointment of respondent No. 4 after filing of the
present petition. The appointment of the respondent No. 4, made
during pendency of present petition, was obviously subject to the
outcome of the same.
19. We, therefore, allow the petition by setting aside the
appointment of the respondent No. 4 and direct the respondent-
university to consider the candidature of the petitioner for being
appointed on the post of Agriculture Assistant (Graduate) and if found
fit and eligible, appoint him on that post with effect from the date of
appointment of the respondent No. 4 i. e. 06.09.2019 with all
consequential benefits except backwages. ”

432-24-WP.odt
{6}
7. The judgment examined Section 6 of the Maharashtra Project
Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and the terms of the
advertisement in detail. It also took note of the fact that the petitioner
had, in the interregnum, obtained temporary employment elsewhere,
and categorically held that such temporary employment could not
defeat his rightful claim flowing from the selection process.
8. It is material to note that the judgment dated 14.10.2022 has
attained finality. Its findings bind the parties. Instead of implementing
the said judgment in its true letter and spirit, the university sought an
opinion from the Deputy Collector, Acquisition Department, Parbhani,
regarding the validity of the petitioner’s PAP certificate. By
communication dated 10.05.2023, the Deputy Collector opined that the
petitioner had accepted employment in the Agriculture Department,
Latur Division, and therefore, had already availed benefit under the
certificate, and under Government Resolution dated 21.01.1980, the
benefit could not be availed again. Based upon this opinion, the
respondent university issued the impugned communication dated
15.09.2023, rejecting the petitioner’s candidature.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is in clear violation of the earlier judgment of this

432-24-WP.odt
{7}
Court. It was argued that eligibility has to be tested as on the cut-off
date prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioner’s temporary
appointment in May 2020 occurred long after the cut-off date and even
after the wrongful appointment of Respondent No. 7. The earlier
judgment had expressly considered the fact of such temporary
employment and held that it could not be a ground to deny
appointment. The respondents, by resurrecting the same ground, have
acted in defiance of judicial directions. It was further contended that the
Government Resolution of 1980 cannot override the provisions of the
1999 Act, and that horizontal reservation for PAP candidates cannot be
nullified by executive instructions.
10. On behalf of Respondents 4 to 6, it was argued that the earlier
judgment directed only consideration of the petitioner’s candidature,
subject to eligibility and fitness. It was contended that upon seeking
clarification from the Deputy Collector, it was revealed that the
petitioner had already availed benefit under the certificate and
therefore stood disentitled. It was submitted that permitting repeated
use of the certificate would frustrate Government policy.
11. The learned AGP submitted that the communication dated
10.05.2023 was merely an opinion rendered upon query and that the
university was free to take its own decision.

432-24-WP.odt
{8}
12. Having heard the parties at length and perused the material on
record, we are compelled to record that the impugned action reflects a
clear misunderstanding of the binding nature of judicial directions and
the limits of administrative discretion. The earlier judgment of this
Court had conclusively determined three aspects; first, that the
petitioner’s claim under the General PAP category from the same
establishment required due consideration; second, that the appointment
of Respondent No. 7 in derogation of statutory mandate was
unsustainable; and third, that the petitioner’s temporary employment
elsewhere could not be treated as a disqualification. These findings
were not tentative observations; they formed the ratio of the decision.
13. The impugned rejection order is nothing but a reintroduction of
a ground already adjudicated. The temporary employment of the
petitioner occurred subsequent to the selection process and subsequent
to the wrongful appointment of Respondent No. 7. Eligibility must be
assessed with reference to the cut-off date in the advertisement. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar
(1997) 4 SCC 18, has reiterated that eligibility conditions are to be
satisfied on the last date prescribed. Subsequent events cannot
retrospectively defeat accrued rights.

432-24-WP.odt
{9}
14. The reliance upon Government Resolution dated 21.01.1980 is
equally untenable. Executive instructions cannot override statutory
provisions. Section 6 of the 1999 Act confers statutory reservation in
public employment for project affected persons. There is no provision in
the Act stipulating that acceptance of temporary employment
extinguishes future entitlement arising from a prior selection process.
Even otherwise, the policy speaks of benefits to one member of the
family. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the sole beneficiary. The
certificate has not been cancelled or declared invalid. The
communication of the Deputy Collector dated 10.05.2023 is in the
nature of an administrative opinion. It does not purport to invalidate
the certificate. It does not take into account the binding judgment of
this Court. The university cannot treat such opinion as a legal mandate
overriding judicial directions.
15. We must now address the conduct of the respondent university
in issuing the corrigendum dated 07.06.2023, whereby the appointment
of Respondent No. 7 was purportedly converted from General PAP
category to pure General category. This Court had, in unequivocal
terms, set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 7 in the earlier
judgment. The effect of that judgment was to nullify the appointment as
it stood. The subsequent issuance of a corrigendum altering the

432-24-WP.odt
{10}
category of appointment, without fresh advertisement, without fresh
selection, and without judicial sanction, is an action that borders upon
institutional impropriety. It conveys the impression that the authorities
were determined to preserve the appointment of Respondent No. 7 at
any cost, even if it required recharacterising the basis of appointment
post facto. Such conduct cannot be countenanced. Administrative
authorities are not at liberty to devise mechanisms to neutralize or
overreach judicial pronouncements. The rule of law demands
obedience, not ingenuity in evasion. Any attempt, direct or indirect, to
dilute the effect of a court’s judgment strikes at the heart of
constitutional governance. We record our strong disapproval of this
practice. The university and its officers are hereby cautioned that future
attempts to alter, circumvent, or render otiose judicial orders by
administrative stratagem will invite serious consequences, including
proceedings for contempt. However, since no candidate from the
General category has challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 7
and considering that he has continued in service for several years, we
refrain, in the peculiar facts of this case, from disturbing that
appointment. Our restraint should not be construed as approval. The
legality of that appointment remains open to challenge in appropriate
proceedings. In the totality of circumstances, we find that the impugned
communication dated 15.09.2023 is legally unsustainable. It violates

432-24-WP.odt
{11}
the binding judgment of this Court, misapplies executive instructions,
and disregards settled principles governing eligibility and horizontal
reservation. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The communication dated 15.09.2023 issued by
Respondent No. 5 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondents are directed to issue an appointment
order appointing the petitioner to the post of
Agricultural Assistant (Graduate) against the vacancy
reserved for General Project Affected Persons of the
same establishment pursuant to advertisement dated
25.11.2014. The appointment shall take effect from
06.08.2019 with all consequential benefits except back
wages, in terms of the earlier judgment dated
14.10.2022 in Writ Petition No.8479 of 2019 delivered
by this Court.
(iv) The appointment order shall be issued within four
weeks from the date of this judgment.
16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane