Bombay High Court: In the present petition, the petitioners, being the successful candidates, sought judicial interference against the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), which had upheld the cancellation of their appointments to the post of Police Patil, contending that the selection process was fair and the Tribunal’s decision was legally unsustainable due to alleged irregularities in the interview stage. The Division Bench of Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas*, JJ., while dismissing the petition, observed that when the entire selection process was tainted, there could not be a policy of pick and choose among candidates. The Court held that the constitution of the Interview Committee was fundamentally defective due to delegation of powers, which was impermissible, and thus the entire process was vitiated. The integrity of the selection process was found to be full of doubt, and therefore, the entire selection was required to be set aside.
Background:
The petitioners were selected for the post of Police Patil in different villages pursuant to an advertisement dated 16-03-2023. The selection process was comprised of a written examination held on 08-04-2023 and 09-04-2023, followed by oral interviews on 10-04-2023 and 11-04-2023. Consequently, the appointment orders were issued on 12-04-2023.
Some unsuccessful candidates made complaints alleging malpractice in the selection process, particularly in the oral interview stage. An enquiry was directed by the Collector, Bhandara, through the Additional Collector. The enquiry report submitted in May 2023 found that the selection process was not conducted fairly, and termination orders were issued on 04-07-2023 against the petitioners.
The termination was challenged before the Tribunal which set aside the termination orders and directed reinstatement. That decision was later challenged by the unsuccessful candidates, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal with directions to decide it afresh within 90 days. Meanwhile, employment of the petitioners was protected.
After the Tribunal dismissed the original applications, the petition challenging the Tribunal’s judgment was filed by the petitioners. It was argued that the judgment was legally unsustainable, and that no irregularities or malpractices warranted cancellation of the entire recruitment. It was emphasised that the members who conducted the oral interviews were duly delegated by the original committee members, and such delegation did not invalidate the process. It was also contended that cancellation under Rule 9(E) of the Maharashtra Village Police Rules, 1967 (‘1967 Rules’), was not legally tenable.
The Tribunal’s decision and the State’s action were defended by the unsuccessful candidates. It was pointed out that the oral interviews were conducted in a questionable manner, with inconsistencies in the marking system and unauthorized representatives instead of designated committee members. It was argued that such procedural lapses and findings from the enquiry, including statements from officials, clearly demonstrated that the entire selection process was vitiated, which justified the State’s decision to cancel the appointments to uphold the integrity of the recruitment process.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the Committee constituted for conducting oral interviews was expected to comprise the Sub Divisional Magistrate as Chairman, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, the Social Welfare Officer, the Tribal Project Officer as Members, and the Tahsildar of the Taluka concerned as Member Secretary. However, the Court highlighted that the designated members, as per the Government Resolution dated 23-08-2011, did not preside over the interviews, instead, their representatives took charge.
The Court emphasised that it was a settled principle of law that when an act was mandated to be performed in a particular manner, it was required to be done in that manner only. It was not disputed by the petitioners that the Interview Committee was not comprised of the designated members but of officers on whom powers were delegated. Their stand was that such delegation was permissible.
The Court noted that reliance placed by the petitioners on Rule 3 of the 1967 Rules was misplaced. The Court stated that the said provision pertained to administration, control, and direction of village police by the District Magistrate, who could delegate powers to the Sub Divisional Magistrate or Taluka Magistrate with sanction from the State Government or Commissioner. Thus, the Court clarified that such delegation was only relatable to the District Magistrate and not to other members of the Interview Committee.
The Court highlighted that the Committee was required to assess the performance and personality of candidates through the experienced eyes of superior officers. Delegating such powers to subordinate officers was impermissible in law and amounted to rewriting the Government Resolution dated 23-08-2011. Therefore, the Court held that the constitution of the Interview Committee was fundamentally defective due to delegation of powers, which was impermissible, and thus the entire process was vitiated.
The Court observed that the contention regarding the absence of a fixed procedure for conducting interviews was not acceptable. A peculiar system of giving marks, that too by different methods adopted by different members of the Committee wherein some awarded marks in numbers, while others used a star (*) system, where one star represented five marks, indicated a lack of uniformity in the evaluation process. The Court emphasised that such inconsistency was unfair, as every candidate was required to be judged on a uniform scale. It was further noted that almost all the unsuccessful candidates had secured more marks in the written test than the petitioners.
The Court noted that the interviews were completed within a span of just 1 to 3 minutes. Though the interview process was captured on CCTV, the Court observed that the footage lacked audio. It was further highlighted that no documents showing endorsement or marking during the oral interview were available, and the Sub Divisional Officer stated that such papers were destroyed as rough work.
The Court observed that when the entire selection process was tainted, there could not be a policy of pick and choose among candidates. The integrity of the selection process was found to be full of doubt, and therefore, the Court held that the entire selection was required to be set aside. It was further noted that it would have been very difficult to segregate the role or merit of each individual candidate under such compromised circumstances.
The Court concluded that no case was made out by the petitioners which required interference at the hands of the Court. Hence, the petitions were dismissed. However, the petitioners contended that since the interim order was operating in their favour, the same might be extended for a further period of four weeks. Though opposed by the unsuccessful candidates, considering that the interim relief was operating in favour of the petitioners, in the interest of justice, the Court extended the interim relief for a further four weeks.
[Ashish v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4360 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajnish R. Vyas
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Hrishikesh Chitaley, Advocate
For the Respondents: S.S. Jachak, Advocate; S.Y. Deopujari, Counsel