Ganesh Ramkisan Borude And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010411702026
2026:BHC-AS:42259-DB
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11128 OF 2026
1. GANESH RAMKISAN BORUDE,
Age 31 years, Adult Indian habitant,
R/at. Flat No. 501, 5th Floor, Sailata
Building, Plot No. 277, Sector 24, New
Mumbai – 410 206.
2. VICKY KISHOR BOHARE,
age 33 years, adult indian habitant,
R/at. New Pachpawli Police Quarter,
G-502, Near Kamal Chack, Dist.
Nagpur – 440017.
3. SURAJ SIJAODDIN SHAIKH,
age 32 years, adult indian habitant,
R/at. Rahimpur, Post Jikthan,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Chhatrapati
Sambhaji Nagar.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2026.10.16
15:30:58 +0530
4. RATNAKAR DATTATRAYA PADULE,
age 31 years, adult indian habitant,
R/at. Kaudgaon, Post Domgaon,
Tal. Paranda,
Dist. Osmanabad – 413504.
5. SANDIP PRABHU MESHRAM,
age 38 years, adult indian habitant,
R/at. Suraksha Colony, Tapowan,
Near Panchasheel Chowk, Amravati –
444602.
6. MANGESH DASHRATH SAWANT,
age 30 years, adult indian habitant,
R/at. SRPF Camp, Nagpur Gr. 04,
Hingna Road, Nagpur – 440016.
7. SANJAY MUNJAJI LANDGEPATIL,
age 39 years, adult indian habitant,
Page 1 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
R/at. Jawala, Shajpur, Po. Lohagaon,
Dist. Parbhani – 431402.
8. MAYUR MACHCHHINDRA BHARTI,
age 32 years, adult indian habitant,
r/at. 21 'A', Gauri Housing Society,
Government Milk Dairy Road, Dhule –
424001.
9. SUNIL BABASAHEB GOLHAR,
age 36 years, adult indian habitant,
R/at. Mohar Pratima 5050, E Building,
Flat No. 503, Talegaon Dhabade,
Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune – 410506.
10. MAHESH MACHHINDRANATH
BALASAHEB BORHADE,
age 36 years, adult indian habitant,
R/at. Jawala Kadlag Road,
At Po. Wadgaon, Landga,
Tal. Sangamner, Post Dhandharphal,
Dist. Ahmednagar – 422603.
11. SATISH GOVINDRAO GITE,
age 43 years, adult indian habitant,
R/at. Limboti, Tq. Loha,
District Nanded – 431705. …PETITIONERS
~ versus ~
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE SECRETARY,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400032.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Colaba,
Mumbai – 400001.
3. THE MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION,
Through The Secretary,
Trishul Gold Field, Plot No. 34,
Sector 11, Opp. Sarovar Vihar,
Page 2 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
Belapur Cbd, Navi Mumbai – 400614.
4. PATIL BHAGWAT HARIDAS,
r/at. Pimpalgaon Kh. Po. Wakod,
Jamner, Jalgaon – 424205.
5. SAGAR SUPRIYA DILIP,
r/at. Ajagar Ali Plot No. 358,
Balaji Nagar, Umarga M Cl.,
Umarga, Dharashiv – 413606.
6. SHAIKH FIROZ ABDUL MAJID,
R/At. Plot Naregaon, Rajendra Nagar,
Aurangabad – 431001.
7. GANDRAKOTA SAMPAT ASHOK,
R/At. Mu. Janampalli, Post Janamalli,
Taluka Sironcha, Dist. Gadchiroli –
442504.
8. KALE KISHOR DEVIDAS,
R/At. Hingane Pimpri, Sayee Krupa,
Main Road, Gopal Jj,
Jamner, Jalgaon – 424209.
9. GOLHAR PRADIP DILIP,
Permanent Residing At: Jawalwadi,
Post Kharwandi Kasar, Tal. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar – 414113.
Currently Residing At: Room No. 52, A
Wing, Teen Dongari, Police Quarter,
M.G. Road, Goregaon West,
Mumbai – 400062.
10. PADAVALE RAMAKAJI JAKU,
permanent residing at: at post
shirnadgi, maroli road, waghmode
wasti, mangalvedhe, solapur –
413322.
Currently residing at: Room No. 101,
Shree Swami Samarth Complex,
Dwarli Pada, Malang Gadh Road,
Waghmode Wasti, Kalyan E,
Ambarnath – 421306.
Page 3 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
11. GADEKAR DNYANDEV VINAYAK,
permanent residing at: post chikhali,
chikhali road, kinhavali, shrigonda,
ahilyanagar – 413728.
Currently Residing At: B-402,
Ashirwad Homes, Shinde Wasti, Ravet
Chikhali Pipeline Road, Pimpri,
Chinchwad, Haveli, Pune – 412101.
12. SHIVALE AJINKYA DEVIDAS,
R/At. Tulapur, Shivale Sadan,
Alandi Road, Ganesh Nagar, Haveli,
Pune – 412216.
13. KHANDE RAJABHAU BHAURAO,
R/At. Mhalasapur, Mahalas Jawala,
Dist. Beed – 431122.
14. GARJE ASHOK GAHINATH,
Permanent Residing At: Post Khilad,
Tal. Ashti, Dist. Beed – 414208.
Currently Residing At: Sai Krupa
Valley, B1, Room No. 403,
Chinch Ali, Neral, Taluka Karjat,
Dist. Raigad – 410101. …RESPONDENTS
A PPEARANCES
For the Petitioners Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate
i/b Adv. Yatin Malvankar.
For the Respondent No. 4, 5,
7 to 14
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate,
with Shrikant Patil, Arjun Pawar &
Rohan Bhondave.
For The Respondent No. 3 Mr. Ashutosh M Kulkarni, with
Krutik R Chavan.
For the Respondent-State Ms. Kavita N Solunke – Addl.GP,
with R. M. Shinde, AGP.
Page 4 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 30 SEPTEMBER 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 16 OCTOBER 2026.
JUDGMENT ( Per Suman Shyam, J) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The 11 (eleven) Writ Petitioners, who are presently serving
as Police Constables, have filed the present Writ Petition,
th
challenging the judgment and order dated 12 August 2026 passed
by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, (“Tribunal”)
Mumbai, in Original Application No.472 of 2026. By the impugned
judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the
Original Application filed by the Petitioners challenging the revised
criteria employed for assessing the marks awarded to them in the
800 meters running event conducted as part of the Physical Test
for recruitment in the post of Police Sub-Inspector, through Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination, 2023 (“PSI-LDCE-2023”).
Page 5 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
3. The facts and circumstances of the case, giving rise to the
filing of the present Writ Petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are
as hereinunder.
4. The Respondent No. 3-Maharashtra Public Service
Commission (“MPSC”) had issued Advertisement No.052/2023
th
dated 8 September 2023, for filling up 615 number of posts of
Police Sub-Inspectors, through the Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination (“LDCE-2023”). The Petitioners, along
with other eligible candidates, participated in the LDCE-2023.
th
They appeared in the Preliminary Examination (“PE”) held on 10
th
December 2023. Upon declaration of the results of the PE on 29
August 2024, the Petitioners were found to have qualified.
5. Thereafter, the MPSC had issued Advertisement
th
No.047/2024 dated 20 September 2024 for the Mains
Examination for the PSI-LDCE-2023. The Mains Examination was
th
conducted on 29 December 2024 and the result of the same was
th
declared on 9 May 2025.
nd
6. On 2 April 2026, MPSC issued a notification for holding the
Physical Test. Appendix-A and Appendix-B appended to the said
Page 6 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
notification had laid down the marking criteria to be employed for
th
the Physical Test. The Physical Test was conducted from 15 April
th
2026 to 30 April 2026 under the supervision of a five-member
Committee headed by its Chairman. The committee consisted of
officers from the Sports as well as the Police Department. The said
committee was constituted by following the guidelines laid down
th
in Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 27 September 2017. The
score sheets (day end report) bearing the signatures of the
candidates as well as the members of the Committee were
prepared on day to day basis. The Physical Test was for 100 marks
in total, comprising of four events for the male candidates, viz. 800
meters running race carrying 50 marks, pull-ups carrying 20
marks, shot-put carrying 15 marks and long jump carrying 15
marks. The minimum qualifying mark was prescribed as 45 out of
100 marks.
7. The controversy in the present Petition is pertaining to the
manner in which time recorded in the 800 meters running event
was applied for the purpose of awarding marks for that event. As
nd
per Appendix-A to the Notification dated 02 April 2026,
candidates who had completed the 800 meters running race in less
Page 7 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
than 2 minutes 30 seconds were to be awarded 50 marks whereas
those, who had clocked more than 2 minutes 30 seconds, were to
be awarded 44 marks. According to the Petitioners, their
performance in the 800 meters event was correctly recorded
through the electronic timing system and they were allotted 50
marks each. The time taken and the marks scored by the
candidates including the Petitioners were declared on the spot and
the relevant score sheets were also signed by the candidates which
were countersigned by the Physical Test Committee by applying
the criteria of minutes and seconds. However, by subsequently
revising the time so recorded by applying milliseconds, the
Petitioners were eliminated from the provisional select list. This,
according to the Petitioners, tantamounts to changing the rules of
selection after the test was held and hence, was impermissible in
the eyes of law.
th
8. On 30 April 2026, the General Merit List and the
Provisional Select List were published and the names of the
Petitioners were included therein.
9. According to the Petitioners, after publication of the General
Merit List and the Provisional List, objections were received from
Page 8 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
th
certain candidate(s). Thereafter, on 20 May 2026, the MPSC had
issued a Circular informing the candidates regarding revision of
the marks awarded in the 800 meters running event by considering
the precise digital timing including milliseconds, pursuant
whereto, the marks of the candidates were revised. As such, by
applying the criterion of milliseconds, it was found that the
Petitioners took in excess of 2 minutes 30 seconds to complete the
race. Accordingly, their marks in the 800 meters event were
reduced from 50 to 44, as a result of which, the Petitioners names
were deleted from the final selection list and the names of the
private Respondents were included in Sr. Nos. 604 to 614.
10. The stand of the MPSC, on the other hand, is that after
representation(s) was/were received from the candidate(s), the
timings of the male candidates were re-verified and it was detected
that although the digital clock had recorded the timing of the
running race (800 meters.) in minutes, seconds and milliseconds,
yet, during tabulation, the time in milliseconds were ignored which
had produced an erroneous result. As such, the marks were revised
by taking into consideration the precise timing in minutes, seconds
and milliseconds, whereafter, the correct position had emerged.
Page 9 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
According to the MPSC, the corrections were made so as to
maintain authenticity and transparency in the selection process
and the 800 meters marks were revised by invoking powers under
Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, 2014. It is
also the case of the MPSC that it was permissible to invoke Rule 16
so as to rectify a mistake which initially went undetected.
th
Accordingly, on 20 May 2026, the MPSC had revised the results
on the basis of the revised timings in milliseconds and the revised
marks were published, as a result of which, the Petitioners got
excluded from the final select list, whereas the private respondents
came to be included as they had secured higher marks.
11. Being aggrieved by the reduction of their marks and their
consequent exclusion from the final merit list, the Petitioners had
approached the Tribunal, at Mumbai, by filing Original Application
No.472 of 2026, wherein they had challenged the revised marks
and the consequential revision of the merit/select list and had also
sought restoration of their original position as in the provisional
select list.
th
12. The Learned Tribunal, by the judgment and order dated 12
August 2026, dismissed the Original Application No.472 of 2026,
Page 10 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
inter alia , observing that the MPSC had the power under Rule 16
of the Rules of Procedure to take corrective measures by revising
the day-end reports and the select list, by recording a finding that
the omission to record the exact timing in minutes, seconds and
milliseconds was an error, the rectification of which, fell within the
scope of Rule 16.
th
13. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12 August
2026 passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioners have approached this
Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
14. Mr. Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, has argued that the subsequent revision of marks was
undertaken without disclosure of the relevant records,
methodology or electronic data and without notice or opportunity
of hearing to the Petitioners. Therefore, the action of MPSC
amounted to alteration of the method of calculation after the
Physical Test was completed. The learned Senior Counsel has,
therefore, argued that in the absence of any error or discrepancy in
the electronic timing system, the marks declared at the Physical
Test could not have been subsequently reduced/ or altered by the
MPSC.
Page 11 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, by placing
reliance upon Clauses 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 of the General Instructions,
has further argued that the marks awarded and declared on the
spot were to be treated as final. As such, subsequent revision of
marks would amount to alteration of the criteria after the
commencement of the selection process and hence, was contrary to
the settled principle that “the rules of the game cannot be changed
after the game has begun”. In support of his above arguments, Mr.
Anturkar has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [AIR 2008
SC 1470] and Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors. [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 761].
16. It was further submitted by Mr. Anturkar that neither the
advertisement, Annexure-A to the Call Letter nor the General
Guidelines, provided for subsequent conversion of the recorded
timings or revision of marks in the manner done by the MPSC.
According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, his
clients had participated in the Physical Test by relying upon the
notified criteria. Based on the marks awarded, the Petitioners were
Page 12 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
included in the Provisional Select List. Therefore, the subsequent
reduction of marks was arbitrary and illegal.
17. It is also the submission of Mr. Anturkar, that the record
maintained by the Physical Test Committee could not have been
unilaterally altered and/or tinkered with by the MPSC without
involving the Committee. It was further contended that the
th
mechanism contemplated under the Circular dated 27 September
2017 ought to have been followed in letter and spirit and even if
any change in the day-end report was called for, the same ought to
have been done by the committee itself. According to the learned
Senior Counsel, Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure could not have
been invoked by the MPSC to undertake a substantive
reassessment or revision of the finalized marks. As such Mr.
Anturkar submits that, the Tribunal has erred in treating it as
“accidental slip” or “omission” so as to validate such recalculation
of marks in exercise of power under Rule 16.
18. To sum up his arguments, Mr. Anturkar has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has failed to properly consider the
advertisement notice, Annexure-A and the General Guidelines
while determining the relevance of milliseconds. Therefore, the
Page 13 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
impugned order is vitiated by complete non-application of mind
and misapplication of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure.
19. Mr Anturkar, has taken an additional plea to assail the
th
impugned Notification dated 20 May 2026 by submitting that
even if it is assumed that under Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure,
it was permissible to rectify the defect in the General Merit List by
carrying out revision of the same, even in that case, the said power
would lie exclusively with the MPSC headed by its Chairman and
not upon the Deputy Secretary, who has unilaterally issued the
th
Notification dated 20 May 2026. The impugned Notification
th
dated 20 May 2026 according to Mr. Anturkar, is liable to be set
aside solely on the ground that the official issuing the same was
not competent under the law to do so.
20. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the
exercise undertaken by the Commission after publication of the
Provisional Selection List did not amount to any change in the
methodology of awarding marks in the Physical Test or
reassessment of the physical performance of the Petitioners. He has
submitted that the digital system had contemporaneously recorded
Page 14 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
the running time in minutes, seconds and milliseconds and that the
subsequent exercise was confined only to correcting the
inadvertent omission of the millisecond component which was
initially not applied in the day end report of the male candidates.
According to the learned Counsel, the notified marking pattern had
remained unchanged and the marks were revised only by applying
the correct and precise digitally recorded timing of the candidates.
It was further submitted that the Petitioners had not disputed the
accuracy or authenticity of the revised timings recorded against
their names. As such, the decision of the MPSC cannot be faulted
on any of the grounds urged in the Writ Petition.
21. Mr. Anil Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Private Respondents, while supporting the impugned judgment as
well as the action of the Commission, has submitted that the
correction of the marks did not constitute any change in the “rules
of the game” as has been alleged. There has been no change in the
eligibility condition, qualification, physical standard or marking
criterion nor has the selection criteria been altered after
commencement of the selection process. According to Mr. Sakhare,
nd
the criteria contained in the Notification dated 2 April 2026 have
Page 15 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
been properly applied by employing the precise digitally recorded
timing of the candidates. The learned Senior Counsel has further
submitted that the precise digital timing was not a new or
unexpected methodology and that such timing upto the
milliseconds had been used even in earlier LDCE recruitment, in
which, some of the Petitioners had also participated. According to
Mr. Sakhare, the reliance placed by the Petitioners on K. Manjusree
(Supra) and Prabhjot Kaur (Supra) was misplaced, as the present
case did not involve introduction of any new criterion or alteration
of the conditions of selection after the commencement of the
recruitment process.
22. The learned Senior Counsel for the Private Respondents has
further argued that no vested right accrued in favor of the
Petitioners on the basis of the marks reflected in the General Merit
List or the Provisional Select List, since the same were always
subject to verification and correction before finalization. Therefore,
he has argued that the provisional allotment of 50 marks to the
Petitioners, being dehors the criterion of millisecond component,
was clearly erroneous, which was rightly rectified by the MPSC in
the Final Merit List. Mr. Sakhare has further argued that since the
Page 16 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
MPSC has employed a predetermined and transparent criteria, no
prejudice has been caused to the Petitioners. Hence, no prior
hearing was necessary in this case before carrying out the
correction, particularly when the Petitioners had not demonstrated
that the revised digital timings were fabricated, manipulated or
technically incorrect.
23. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
have also gone through the material available on record.
24. As would be apparent from the facts and circumstances of
the case alluded to hereinbefore, the core controversy in this case
pertains to the validity of the exercise carried out by the MPSC
leading to the revision of the merit list whereby, the names of the
Original Applicants/Petitioner were excluded, although their
names were initially included in the ‘General Merit List’ and the
th
‘Provisional Merit List’ published on 30 April 2026. According to
the Petitioners, carrying out amendments in the merit list,
subsequent to publishing the same, amounts to “changing the rules
of the game” after the same has been played. The MPSC, on the
other hand, has disputed such contention and has projected that in
view of the provisions of Rule 16, it had the power to correct any
Page 17 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
unintentional error/mistake in the merit list. Since the controversy
basically pertains to awarding of marks to the candidates in the
category of 800 meters running race, which was one of the
components of the physical tests, it would be necessary for this
Court to deal with the marking pattern employed in the said test.
nd
25. The Notification dated 2 April 2026 issued by the Deputy
Secretary of MPSC (post examination), contained Annexure-A as
well as Annexure-B laying down the marking criteria in the
running race for the male and the female candidates, respectively.
The criteria prescribed the marks to be awarded in the 800 meters
running race for male candidates, in Annexure-A, which is quoted
hereinbelow, in tabular form, for ready reference:-
The time taken to complete the full run of 800 meters Marks
2.30 minutes or less… 50
More than 2.30 minutes but less than 2.40 minutes or less 44
than it ...
More than 2.40 minutes but less than 2.50 minutes or less 37.5
than it ...
More than 2.50 minutes but less than 3.00 minutes or less 31
than it ...
More than 3.00 minutes but less than 3.10 minutes or less 25
than it ...
More than 3.10 minutes but less than 3.20 minutes or less 19
than it ...
More than 3.20 minutes but less than 3.30 minutes or less 12.5
than it ...
More than 3.30 minutes 0
Page 18 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
26. From the above table, it is apparent that marks were to be
allotted to the candidates, “block-wise”, depending on the category
in which they ended up, based on the timing clocked by such
candidates in the 800 meters race. By following the above criteria,
all the 11 Petitioners were initially found to have completed the
race within 2 minutes 30 seconds and were awarded 50 marks
each. Based on such marking, the names of the Petitioners were
also included in the ‘General Merit List’ and the ‘Provisional Merit
List’. However, in the wake of the complaint made by some of the
candidates, the MPSC had reviewed the matter and found that
although the day-end report was supposed to record the timing in
the format of minute, seconds and milliseconds, timing in the
format of milliseconds was not recorded. Accordingly, a decision
was taken to apply the precise timing of the candidates in the
running race as per minute, seconds and milliseconds since such
criterion was originally supposed to be applied in case of all
candidates. When milliseconds were applied, it turned out that the
Writ Petitioners had all taken in excess of 2 minutes 30 seconds to
complete their race. As such, instead of 50 marks, each of them
ought to have been awarded 44 marks. On the contrary, it was
Page 19 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
found that the private Respondents had completed the 800 meter
race in less than 2.30 minutes and, therefore, they were entitled to
retain 50 marks each on such count. After the aforesaid corrections
were carried out, the Petitioners were automatically excluded from
the final list and in the merit list, and in their place the private
Respondents were included since the private Respondents had
scored more marks in the 800 meter running event.
27. On a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. Anturkar,
learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners has submitted,
in his usual fairness, that it is not the case of the Petitioners that
they have been replaced in the select list by the Respondents who
had scored lesser marks. The only issue raised by Mr. Anturkar is
pertaining to question as to whether, having published the
provisional list, it was permissible for the MPSC to revise the same
unilaterally, that too without giving any opportunity to the
Petitioners to show cause.
28. In the above context, it would be pertinent to note herein
that Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure of MPSC confers power to
the Commission to correct mistakes. Rule 16 reads as follows:-
Page 20 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
“16. Power of the Commission to correct the mistake.-
The Commission may correct any clerical, typographical,
arithmetical or other mistake in the rank list, advice list or
short list etc. or errors arising therein from any accidental slip
or omission at any time, either on its own motion or on the
application of any of the concerned.”
29. Taking note of the stand of the MPSC that there was an
unintentional error on the part of the Committee constituted under
th
the GR dated 27 September, 2017 to record the timing upto
milliseconds resulting into an obvious error in the outcome of the
merit position and that MPSC being an authority constituted under
Article 315 of the Constitution of India, was duty bound to rectify
such error, the learned Tribunal has held that failure to apply the
additional milliseconds was an omission on the part of the
members of the Committee and therefore, the MPSC had the
power under Rule 16 to take corrective measures by revising the
day end reports leading to the revision of the Select List itself. The
relevant observations of the Tribunal, in paragraph No. 23 of the
th
impugned judgment and order dated 12 August 2026, is
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“23. Even if such mistakes are described as should be due to
'accidental slip' or 'omission', in our considered view these
words would take within its sweep the fact situation like the
matter in hand, where the marks were allotted by the
committee while preparing the day end reports without
Page 21 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
recording the time in milliseconds. If one bears in mind the fact
that by virtue of notification dated 02.04.2026 (Exhibit-C)
Appendix C, 50 marks could have been awarded to only such
candidates who were to cover 800 meters distance in 2 minutes
and 30 seconds or less. The candidates completing the distance
in more than 2 minutes and 30 seconds and in 2 minutes and
40 seconds or less, were to be awarded 44 marks. There is no
room for any discretion in the committee to overlook the
milliseconds more taken by a candidate in covering 800 meter
distance. Considering the scheme of marking, even a fraction of
milliseconds more taken by a candidate for completing the
distance in more than 2 minutes and 30 seconds would be
decisive and should have been considered by the members. of
the committee who simply signed the day end reports without
ensuring that candidates like the applicants have taken more
than 2 minutes and 30 seconds and had not covered the
distance in 2 minutes and 30 seconds or less. Naturally, since
the time was recorded in minutes and seconds, ignoring
additional milliseconds taken by them, they were all awarded
50 marks. We, therefore, are of the confirmed view that it was
clearly an omission on the part of the members of the
committee to record exact time in minutes, seconds and
milliseconds and to allot marks overlooking the additional
milliseconds taken by these applicants in covering the distance.
If this was so, the M.P.S.C. had powers under Rule 16 of the
Rules of Procedure to take corrective measures by revising the
day end reports and by revising the select list.”
30. Since it is not in dispute that all the Petitioners had taken
more than 2 minutes 30 seconds to complete the 800 meter race,
nd
as per the marking criteria laid down in the notification dated 02
April 2026, none of them could have been awarded 50 marks for
the said event. Rather, they were entitled to 44 marks only. Viewed
from that angle, the original marking awarded to the Petitioners
was clearly erroneous and the same has occurred purely on
account of failure on the part of the Committee to record the
Page 22 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
timing in milliseconds in the day end report, which fact has also
been rightly noted by the Learned Tribunal. Having regard to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any
justifiable ground to take a different view in the matter.
31. It is to be noted herein is that the revision carried out in the
day end report did not amount to tinkering with the data which
was originally recorded by the Committee on the basis of inputs of
digital timing provided by the service provider, but the same had
resulted in recording the data in a more accurate format, i.e., upto
milliseconds. Recording the data upto milliseconds cannot be
considered either as being contrary to the scheme of marking
criterion, nor is the same in conflict with the notified procedure for
preparing the merit list of successful candidates. Since the entire
exercise was aimed at giving higher marks to the faster candidates
and considering the fact that recording the time by using
milliseconds was aimed at producing a more precise and accurate
results, enabling the MPSC to segregate the successful candidates
from those who were unsuccessful, it cannot be said that the
exercise carried out by the MPSC was in any manner contrary to
the notified criteria or illegal. It is not the case of the Petitioners
Page 23 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
th
that the notification dated 20 May, 2026 had been issued by the
MPSC with a mala fide intention to cause injury to the Petitioners.
32. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves a
mention herein. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the
impugned exercise carried out by the MPSC in revising the final
merit list has caused any prejudice to them. It is not the case of the
Petitioners that the data relied upon by the MPSC for arriving at
the above conclusion was either contaminated or inaccurate nor is
it their case that the Petitioners had completed 800 meters race in
lesser time than the Respondents or for that matter, they had
completed the 800 meter running race in less than 2 minutes 30
seconds so as to score 50 marks.
33. As noted above, it is correct that initially in the day end
report, the timings were not recorded in terms of milliseconds as a
result of which all the Petitioners were shown to have clocked 2
minutes, 30 seconds and accordingly, were awarded 50 marks
each. However, once the milliseconds criteria was employed, it
turned out that each of them had taken time in excess of 2.30
minutes and therefore, were entitled to only 44 marks each. The
exercise carried out by the MPSC had therefore, resulted in
Page 24 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
bringing out the results of the running race with more clarity and
accuracy, thus, placing the candidates scoring higher marks in the
final merit list. Therefore, carrying out correction of a bona fide
error in awarding marks by applying the modified criteria in our
considered opinion, cannot even remotely be termed as changing
the rules of game nor can the same be said to have caused
prejudice to the interest of the Petitioners in any manner. Rather,
by carrying out the aforesaid exercise, the MPSC has given
preference to the candidates who had scored higher marks than
the Petitioners.
34. In so far as the plea regarding incompetence on the part of
th
the Deputy Secretary, to issue the notification dated 20 May, 2026
is concerned, the aforesaid plea is also found to be unacceptable
on account of the fact that the MPSC, by filing Affidavit has,
clarified that it was the decision of the Commission which was
given effect to, through a notification issued by the Deputy
Secretary. Therefore, it cannot be said that the power under Rule
16 was not exercised by the MPSC but only by an official of the
Commission in his individual capacity.
35. In so far as the failure on the part of the Commission to
Page 25 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
obtain the signature of all the members of the Physical Test
Committee in the revised day end report is concerned, the learned
Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the said aspect of the matter
and by recording cogent reasons, has held that the same would not
have any vitiating effect on the outcome of the selection process.
36. It is to be noted herein that the power under Rule 16 of the
Rules of Procedure is available to the commission to rectify any
mistake. Therefore, once a “mistake”, “accidental error” or
“omission” is detected by the MPSC, which had the effect of
producing an erroneous result, it is axiomatic that such error must
be corrected as otherwise, the same would result in injustice to the
candidates, who had scored higher marks. The power of the MPSC
under Rule 16 cannot be held to be subject to fulfillment of any
other technical requirement such as obtaining the signature of all
Committee Members in the revised day-end reports. Moreover, the
circumstances under which the signature of the Committee
Members could not be obtained in the revised day-end report had
also been placed before the learned Tribunal, which, in our
opinion, offers sufficient justification. The learned Tribunal had
also accepted the same. Therefore, we do not find any valid
Page 26 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
MPSC-WP-11128-2026-F.doc
ground to disturb the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on
the above issue.
37. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Writ Petition is held
to be devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
38. Consequently, the ad-interim order passed earlier in this case
stands vacated.
39. Parties to bear their own costs.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 27 of 27
th
16 October 2026
Uploaded on - 16/10/2026 Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 15:50:29
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)