01Facts
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) advertised 27 Fisheries Development Officer posts, including four reserved for OBC candidates; one OBC post was earmarked for a woman and one for a candidate with a disability (PwD).
¶ 3–4 · pp. 2–3The respondent applied as an OBC general candidate and ranked 42nd with 112.50 marks. Musane Amol Sanjiv, listed as an OBC-PwD candidate with visual impairment, was recommended against the PwD-reserved post; he later joined as an FDO through departmental promotion.
¶ 4–5 · pp. 3–4After making representations, the respondent applied to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which directed MPSC to recommend him for appointment as an OBC general candidate. MPSC challenged that order.
¶ 6 · p. 4The selection result had been declared on 10 October 2023, and the list expired on 9 October 2024; the Government’s requisition concerning the vacancy reached MPSC on 12 December 2024.
¶ 7, 16–17 · pp. 5, 11–1202Issues
i.1. Whether the MAT could direct MPSC to recommend the respondent from an expired select/reserved list for a vacancy earmarked for an OBC-PwD candidate.
¶ 13–17 · pp. 8–12ii.2. Whether the MAT was justified in relying on State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sat Pal to direct the recommendation, notwithstanding the circumstances and basis of that decision.
¶ 18–20 · pp. 12–14iii.3. Whether the respondent’s application before the MAT was incompetent for failing to join another OBC-PwD candidate who could be affected by the relief sought.
¶ 21 · p. 1403Law Applied
Under Rule 10(8)(b) of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014, the reserved list lapses one year after declaration of the result where no subsequent advertisement is issued.
¶ 16–17 · pp. 11–12The Court applied the distinction in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, between vertical reservations under Article 16(4) and horizontal reservations under Article 16(1): horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities cuts across vertical categories, and selected candidates are adjusted within their relevant vertical category.
¶ 15 · pp. 10–11It also held that Sat Pal, in which the Supreme Court granted relief under Article 142 to do complete justice, did not establish a binding rule authorising the MAT to grant the relief in this case.
¶ 19–20 · pp. 13–14A claimant seeking relief that may affect a competing candidate must implead that candidate as a necessary party.
¶ 21 · p. 1404Reasoning
The Court found that the advertisement provided for an OBC-PwD post and that the respondent had not challenged the reservation or the recommendation of Musane against it before seeking the vacancy for himself. The Court therefore rejected the respondent’s claim to be considered against a post reserved for an OBC-PwD candidate.
¶ 13–15 · pp. 8–11Independently, the list had expired on 9 October 2024 under Rule 10(8)(b), before the Government’s requisition was received, and the MAT could not direct a recommendation from that expired list.
¶ 16–17 · pp. 11–12Sat Pal was distinguishable: its observations arose from the facts of that case and the Supreme Court’s exercise of Article 142 powers, and did not support the MAT’s direction here.
¶ 18–20 · pp. 12–14The respondent’s failure to implead Pranay Bhadade, another OBC-PwD candidate, was an additional ground rendering the original application incompetent.
¶ 21 · p. 1405Holding
The Court allowed MPSC’s writ petition, quashed and set aside the MAT’s order directing recommendation of the respondent, and made the rule absolute.
¶ 22–25 · pp. 15–16The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
¶ 22–25 · pp. 15–16Original Court PDF
Maharashtra Public Service Commission By And Through The SecretaryvsChetan Shankar Niwalkar And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
