Mumbai: After MAT called the GR allowing SEBC candidates to seek EWS certificates and apply for the vacancies advertised in 2019 illegal, the matter landed before the high court with the state and aggrieved SEBC candidates challenging the ruling.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande said the central question was whether expanding the pool of candidates, including more individuals for the EWS candidates to compete against based on merit, caused EWS candidates prejudice and changed the rules of the game in law.“The answer is in the negative,” the bench said.
The high court ruled: “The state attempted to address a one-time situation by allowing a class that, according to it, was prejudiced to compete for the benefits of reservation. The tribunal has not given any specific findings on how it considers the state actions arbitrary.” It noted that the state had only sought to “address the cause of those who are economically weaker and entitled to EWS reservation”.
Advocate general Birendra Saraf had argued that the GRs were issued to ensure EWS reservation was not unjustly deprived to SEBC candidates due to the Maratha quota having been set aside. The high court agreed and said: “The AG is right in making a grievance that the broad relief granted by the tribunal has affected a considerable number of candidates who are not parties before the tribunal. In our view, the declaration in the impugned order setting aside the GR dated 23 December, 2020, was unnecessary.”
The bench said the state was of the opinion that in view of the predicament faced by the SEBC candidates, the most appropriate action was to allow them to apply under the EWS category, provided they obtained the necessary certificates.It said the advertisement for recruitment mentioned that the number of posts and the reservation were likely to change under the directions issued by the state.
The high court said MAT itself noted that the rules of the game could be changed, though not arbitrarily. “There is a lack of reasoning on how the principle governing changes in rules applied to the specific cases before the tribunal,” the high court said.
The EWS candidates’ contention that cut-off marks for the open category were much higher compared to the EWS category and thus would impact them was “misplaced”, said the high court as the “the cut-off marks are not an eligibility criterion but will only depend on respective marks and the number of posts”.
“The candidates get selected based on the marks they obtain. There is no vested right based on the marks obtained that no one above such marks should be considered,” the high court ruled.
The state and SEBC candidates, through advocate general Saraf, senior counsel Mihir Desai, V A Thorat, Narendra Bandiwadekar, counsel M D Lonkar and Sandeep Deere, and government pleader P P Kakade, argued that the MAT order setting aside the December 23, 2020, GR was based on legally and factually incorrect grounds and was entirely unnecessary. For the EWS candidates, advocates Sayyed Yassen and Sabiha Ansari appeared.
The tribunal should have assessed the specific prejudice faced by the applicants, said the high court.
There was a status quo by the high court on the MAT order since March.
The advocate general said vacancies had remained unfilled due to the litigation, but the high court said appointments made in next four weeks would be subject to further challenge that may be made before the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande said the central question was whether expanding the pool of candidates, including more individuals for the EWS candidates to compete against based on merit, caused EWS candidates prejudice and changed the rules of the game in law.“The answer is in the negative,” the bench said.
The high court ruled: “The state attempted to address a one-time situation by allowing a class that, according to it, was prejudiced to compete for the benefits of reservation. The tribunal has not given any specific findings on how it considers the state actions arbitrary.” It noted that the state had only sought to “address the cause of those who are economically weaker and entitled to EWS reservation”.
Advocate general Birendra Saraf had argued that the GRs were issued to ensure EWS reservation was not unjustly deprived to SEBC candidates due to the Maratha quota having been set aside. The high court agreed and said: “The AG is right in making a grievance that the broad relief granted by the tribunal has affected a considerable number of candidates who are not parties before the tribunal. In our view, the declaration in the impugned order setting aside the GR dated 23 December, 2020, was unnecessary.”
The bench said the state was of the opinion that in view of the predicament faced by the SEBC candidates, the most appropriate action was to allow them to apply under the EWS category, provided they obtained the necessary certificates.It said the advertisement for recruitment mentioned that the number of posts and the reservation were likely to change under the directions issued by the state.
The high court said MAT itself noted that the rules of the game could be changed, though not arbitrarily. “There is a lack of reasoning on how the principle governing changes in rules applied to the specific cases before the tribunal,” the high court said.
The EWS candidates’ contention that cut-off marks for the open category were much higher compared to the EWS category and thus would impact them was “misplaced”, said the high court as the “the cut-off marks are not an eligibility criterion but will only depend on respective marks and the number of posts”.
“The candidates get selected based on the marks they obtain. There is no vested right based on the marks obtained that no one above such marks should be considered,” the high court ruled.
The state and SEBC candidates, through advocate general Saraf, senior counsel Mihir Desai, V A Thorat, Narendra Bandiwadekar, counsel M D Lonkar and Sandeep Deere, and government pleader P P Kakade, argued that the MAT order setting aside the December 23, 2020, GR was based on legally and factually incorrect grounds and was entirely unnecessary. For the EWS candidates, advocates Sayyed Yassen and Sabiha Ansari appeared.
The tribunal should have assessed the specific prejudice faced by the applicants, said the high court.
There was a status quo by the high court on the MAT order since March.
The advocate general said vacancies had remained unfilled due to the litigation, but the high court said appointments made in next four weeks would be subject to further challenge that may be made before the Supreme Court.
About Post Author
