A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamadar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande upheld the state government’s decision to allow candidates who initially applied under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) in 2019, to switch to the EWS category during the ongoing recruitment process.
The court highlighted the one-time situation created after the Supreme Court struck down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Class Act, 2018 (SEBC Act), leading to government resolutions extending the EWS quota to candidates who had initially applied under through SEBC category.
“The State Government, in its effort to support the class without the benefit of reservation post the Supreme Court’s decision, sought to balance the rights and prejudices involved. Firstly, by allowing those from the SEBC category to apply from the EWS category and secondly, by ensuring that those from the EWS category were given appointments by creating supernumerary posts. This was a one-time exercise and cannot be deemed arbitrary”, the court held.
The court allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by the state government and over 100 Maratha candidates who participated in three recruitment processes in 2019 for various posts, including sub-inspector/tax assistant, clerk-typist, positions in the forest department, and engineering services. The petitions challenged the MAT’s order, which disqualified Maratha candidates from applying in the EWS category.
The SEBC Act that provided 16 percent reservation for the Maratha community in public services was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in May 2021. The state government allowed the candidates who had applied under SEBC category to apply under the EWS category, if they had due EWS certificates. The candidates who had applied under EWS from the start challenged this decision before MAT. MAT in the impugned order disqualified candidates who had initially applied under SEBC from being considered under EWS.
The court noted that as per Articles 16(4) and 16(6) of the Constitution, the candidates who were covered under the SEBC Act could not avail the EWS reservation and were compelled to apply under SEBC category. However, once the SEBC Act was struck down, these candidates were left without the benefits of any reservation. The candidates already in the Open merit but economically weaker could compete in the EWS category, but not those economically weaker from the SEBC category whose seats were merged in the Open category, the court noted. If the State perceived this situation as unjust and sought to address it, such an action is not arbitrary, the court stated.
The court noted that all three advertisements had identical conditions and specified that reserved posts were subject to change. The court cited Supreme Court’s judgment in V. Lavanya case in which the Supreme Court held that widening the candidate pool doesn’t amount to ‘changing the rules of the game’ if basic eligibility criteria remain unchanged.
The court noted that no alteration occurred in EWS reservation and the original EWS candidates had not been disqualified, they just had to compete with a larger pool of candidates when the state allowed SEBC candidates to apply under EWS. The SEBC candidates still had to produce due EWS certificates to be eligible under EWS category, the court said.
“the impugned order has made general comments as to the candidates not knowing whom they are competing with. The answer was not in numbers. The fact that EWS candidates had to compete with other EWS candidates remained constant. The key point is that the number of candidates did not affect the fact that EWS candidates were competing against other EWS candidates”, the court observed.
The court rejected the argument that obtaining EWS certificates at the time of publication of recruitment advertisements was a specific eligibility criterion and emphasized that certificates were required to be produced only at the time of the interview.
The impugned order created an inequitable situation by disqualifying candidates who obtained higher marks and possessed EWS certificates because they initially applied under the SEBC category without a choice, the court observed.
The court criticized the Tribunal for setting aside the state’s decision to create supernumerary posts for the EWS category without legal basis observing that it was a one-time exercise to balance rights.
The court set aside the impugned order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal observing that the Tribunal’s decision deviated from established legal principles and negatively impacted a substantial number of candidates.
The court added that if the State appoints candidates within four weeks under the concerned recruitment processes, those appointments would be subject to further challenge, if any, raised in a higher forum.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 2722 of 2023 with connected cases
Case Title – Akshay Ashok Chaudhari and Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra and Ors.
About Post Author
