Amol Kakasaheb Lekurwale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
1 wp 1218.2013+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1218 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4621 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7369 OF 2021 Amol S/o. Kakasaheb Lekurwale Age: 33 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: At Post Jawala, Tq.: Jamkhed, Dist.: Ahmednagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 2.
Deputy Secretary, The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01 3.
Suresh S/o. Sahebrao Deshmukh, Age: Major, Occu.: Drug Inspector, R/o. Through The Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, FDA Head Quarters, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 57 4.
Bhaghyashri D/o. Dinkar Kadam As above 5.
Anil S/o. Mahadevrao Manikrao As above 6.
Abasaheb S/o. Anandrao Raskar As above 7.
Mahesh S/o. Balajirao Kautikwar
2 wp 1218.2013+ As above 8.
Namdev S/o. Sitaramji Bhalerao As above 9.
Javed Husain Shaikh As above 10.
Madhuri Balkrushna Sali As above (Deleted) 11.
Anjali Mangalappa Mitkar As above 12.
Shashikant S/o. Pandurang Yadav As above 13.
Shrutika D/o. Kamalsingh Jadhav As above 14.
Swati D/o. Sudhakar Bharde As above 15.
Monika D/o. Arun Mohod As above 16.
Sujit S/o. Rangnath Bhadke As above 17.
Vijay S/o. Vitthal Nangre As above 18.
Nitin Pandurang Aher As above 19.
Sachin S/o. Ashok Kamble As above 20.
Manish S/o. Vishwas Gotmare As above 21.
Pramod S/o. Vittharaoji Radke As above
3 wp 1218.2013+ 22.
Jeevan S/o. Dattatray Jadhav As above 23.
Suhas S/o. Tanaji Sawant As above 24.
Mahesh S/o. Vinayak Deshpande As above 25.
Ganesh S/o. Ramchandra Rokade As above 26.
Nishigandha D/o. Pandurang Patil As above 27.
Tazi Shehenaz D/o. Abdul Khalil As above 28.
Pravin S/o. Aanurat Mhaske As above (Deleted) 29.
Shrikant S/o. Devendra Fule As above 30.
Vivek Dattatray Coudhari As above 31.
Milind Krushnarao Kaleshwarkar As above 32.
Arun S/o. Sakharam Godse As above 33.
Prashant S/o. Rajendra Ramteke As above 34.
Prashantkumar S/o. Bhaskarrao Aswar As above 35.
Niraj S/o. Vitthalrao Lohakare As above 36.
Kishor S/o. Munirajaji Rajne As above
4 wp 1218.2013+ 37.
Vikas S/o. Vilasrao Patil, As above 38.
Shital D/o. Vijay Gohade As above 39.
Madhav S/o. Jagganath Nimse As above 40.
Manish S/o. Shriram Choudhari As above 41.
Atish S/o. Shiaji Sarkale As above 42.
Savita D/o. Krushnaji Titar As above 43.
Baliram S/o. Damodar Marewad As above 44.
Pravin S/o. Dinkar Harak As above 45.
Dyaneshewar S/o. Mohan Darandale As above 46.
Sunil S/o. Harishchandra Gawali As above 47.
Ramdas S/o. Bhagwan Lonkar As above (Deleted) 48.
Gajanan S/o. Pralhad Ghirke As above 49.
Pravin S/o. Haridas Raut As above 50.
Ashok S/o. Tukaram Rathod As above 51.
Sandeep S/o. Narayan Narawane
5 wp 1218.2013+ As above 52.
Jayashri D/o. Parappa Soudatti As above 53.
Rupesh S/o. Ashrath Whatkar As above 54.
Chandrakant S/o. Arjun More As above 55.
Hitesh S/o. Babubhai Parmar As above (Deleted) 56.
Rajesh S/o. Baburao Bankar As above 57.
Ajay S/o. Mangalprasad Mahule As above 58.
Prachi D/o. Durgasingh Rathod As above 59.
Rakesh S/o. Manoharrao Edlawar As above 60.
Sanjay S/o. Mohansing Rathod As above 61.
Sapna D/o.Surendra Kamble As above 62.
Shubhangi D/o. Sadashiv Bankar As above 63.
Poonam D/o. Raghuvir Pednekar As above 64.
Umesh S/o. Bhaurao Gharote As above 65.
Sachin S/o. Shivdas Bugad As above
6 wp 1218.2013+ 66.
Shamal W/o. Deepak Homkar As above 67.
Vivek S/o. Pandurang Khedkar As above 68.
Sanjali D/o. Atmaram Desai As above (Deleted) 69.
Bhushan S/o. Potal Pali As above 70.
Nitin S/o. Shankarrao Devre As above (Deleted) 71.
Manesh S/o. Mahadev Jagtap Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Akhrut Co. Hs. Society, Room No. C203, Block-C, Sector-14, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai and through Deputy Secretary, M.P.S.C.
Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01 72.
Satish S/o. Arun Polshettiwar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o. MIT College of Pharmacy, Kothrud, Pune - 411 003 and through Deputy Secretary, M.P.S.C., Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01 73.
Varsha D/o. Madhukar Choudhari Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o. N-32 / N-5/ 2711 New CIDCO, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Nashik, and through Deputy Secretary, M.P.S.C., Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01 74.
Manoj S/o. Nandkumar Ayya,
7 wp 1218.2013+ Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Through The Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, FDA Head Quarters, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 57 75.
Ravindra S/o. Mansing Salunke Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o.: 16, Lokmangal Co. Hous. Society, Z.P.Colony, Konark Nagar, Adon Shivar, Nashik and through Deputy Secretary, M.P.S.C.
Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01 76.
Satish S/o. Hirasing Chavhan Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Sarvesh, 27, Bhagyoday Colony, MIDC Road, Amarawati - 444 606 and through Deputy Secretary, M.P.S.C., Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01 77.
Rohit S/o. Shankar Rathod Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o. Through The Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, FDA Head Quarters, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 57 78.
Prashant S/o. Manohar Warade, As above (Deleted) 79.
Pravin S/o. Abhiman Jagtap Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o.: C103, Sai Arcade, Plot No. 8, Sector-20B, Airoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 708 and through Deputy Secretary, M.P.S.C., Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01
8 wp 1218.2013+ 80.
Anil S/o. Vilas Chothe (Deleted) 81.
Abhay S/o. Tulshiram Sangamwar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o.: 1-9-93, Nishigandha, Bhu Vikas Bank Colony, Anand Nagar, Dist. Nanded - 431 602 and through Deputy Secretary, M.P.S.C., Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-01 82.
Rincy Anthoney Chelte Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Through The Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, FDA Head Quarters, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-57 83.
The Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, FDA Head Quarters, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 57 .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. V. D. Salunke AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 83:
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande Advocate for Respondents No. 16,22,73,74:
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. P. S. Dighe, Advocate i/b. Mr. V. R. Dhorde Advocate for Respondents No. 31,32,44to46,53,54: Mr. B. G. Sagade Advocate for Respondents No. 8,9,24:
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon Advocate for Respondents No.
5to7,11,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,37,50,56,60,65,66,77: Ms. P. S. Talekar, Advocate i/b. Mr. S. B. Talekar Advocate for Respondents No. 4,42,52,67:
Mr. M. T. Biradar Advocate for Respondents No.
12,20,25,29,33to36,40,48,49,57,59,64:
Mr. M. S. Sonawane
9 wp 1218.2013+ Advocate for Respondent No. 70: Mr Devang Deshmukh Respondents No. 15,77,82 - served through Paper Publication Respondents No. 10,28,47,55,68,70,78,80 - Deleted Respondents No. 2,3,26,27,30,38,39,41,43,51,58, 61to63,69,71,72,73,75,76,78,79,81 - served ...
AND ...
WRIT PETITION NO.13920 OF 2019 1.
Santoshsing s/o Kapurchandsing Rajput Age: 37 Years, Occu.: Government Servant, R/o.: At Jaikwadi South, Tq.: Paithan, Dist.: Aurangabad-431107 2.
Parag s/o Narayanrao Pathre Age: 46 Years, Occu.: Government Servant, R/o.: Gut No. 95, Plot No. 22, Satara Parisar, Beed Bye Pass, Tq.&Dist.: Aurangabad 3.
Pankaj s/o Liladhar Yewale Age: 41 Years, Occu.: Government Servant, R/o.: Plot No. 71, Laxmi Nagar, Behind Sindhi Colony, Tq.&Dist. Jalgaon .. Petitioners (Orig. Applicants)
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 2.
The Secretary, The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Cooperage Telephone Building, 8th Floor, Maharshi Karve Road,
10 wp 1218.2013+ Cooperage, Mumbai - 400 021 3.
The Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, F.D. Headquarter, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 057 .. Respondents (Orig. Respondents) 4.
Rajesh s/o Baburao Bankar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 5.
Ajay s/o Mangalprasad Mahule Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 6.
Suresh s/o Sahebrao Deshmukh Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 7.
Bhagyashri Dinkar Kadam Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 8.
Anil Madhavrao Manikrao Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 9.
Appasaheb Anandrao Raskar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 10.
Mahesh Balajirao Kautikwar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 11.
Namdev Sitaramji Bhalerao Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 12.
Javed Husain Shaikh Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 13.
Anjali Mangalappa Mitkar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 14.
Shashikant Pandurang Yadav Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 15.
Shrutika Kamalsingh Jadhav Age: Major, Occu.: Service,
11 wp 1218.2013+ 16.
Swati Sudhakar Bharde Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 17.
Monika Arun Mohod Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 18.
Vijay Vitthal Nagare Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 19.
Nittin Pandurang Aher Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 20.
Manish Vishwas Gotmare Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 21.
Jeevan Dattatraya Jadhav Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 22.
Suhas Tanaji Sawant Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 23.
Mahesh Vinayak Deshpande Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 24.
Tazi Shehenaz Abdul Khalil Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 25.
Prashant Rajendra Ramteke Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 26.
Madhav Jagannath Nimse Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 27.
Atish Shivaji Sarkale, Age: Major, occu.: Service, 28.
Sunil Harishchandra Gawli Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 29.
Pravin Haridas Raut Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 30.
Hitesh Babubhai Parmar
12 wp 1218.2013+ Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 31.
Prachi Durgasingh Rathod Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 32.
Raksh Manoharrao Edlawar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 33.
Sanjay Mohansing Rathod Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 34.
Poonam Raghuvir Pednekar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 35.
Varsha Madhukar Choudhari Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 36.
Satish Hirasingh Chavan Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 37.
Rohit Shankar Rathod Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 38.
Sapna Surendra Kamble Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 39.
Sachin Ashok Kamble Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 40.
Manoj Nandkumar Ayya Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 41.
Smt. Shamal Dipak Homkar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 42.
Vivek s/o Pandurang Khedkar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 43.
Ganesh Ramchandra Rokade Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 44.
Shrikant Devendra Fule Age: Major, Occu.: Service,
13 wp 1218.2013+ 45.
Milind Krushnarao Kaleshwarkar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 46.
Arun Sakharam Godse Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 47.
Prashantkumar Bhaskarrao Aswar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 48.
Neeraj Vitthalrao Lohakare Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 49.
Kishor Munirajji Rajne Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 50.
Vikas Vilasrao Patil Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 51.
Shital Vijay Gohade Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 52.
Manish Shriram Choudhari Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 53.
Savita Krushnaji Titar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 54.
Baliram Damodhar Marewad Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 55.
Pravin Dinkar Harak Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 56.
Dnyaneshwar Mohan Darandale Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 57.
Gajanan Pralhad Ghirke Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 58.
Ashok Tukaram Rathod Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 59.
Sandip Narayan Narawane Age: Major, Occu.: Service,
14 wp 1218.2013+ 60.
Jayshri Parappa Soudatti Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 61.
Chandrakant Arjun More Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 62.
Shubhangi Sadashiv Bankar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 63.
Umesh Bhaurao Gharote Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 64.
Sachin Shivdas Bugad Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 65.
Nishigandha Pandurang Patil Age: Major, Occu.: Service, ..Respondents (Orig. Respondents) 66.
Madhuri Balkrushna Sali Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 67.
Sujit Rangnath Bhadke Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 68.
Pramod Vitthalraoji Radke Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 69.
Pravin Aanurath Mhaske Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 70.
Rupesh Ashrath Whatkar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 71.
Nitin Shankarrao Devre Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 72.
Manesh Mahadev Jagtap Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 73.
Satish Arunrao Polshettiwar Age: Major, Occu.: Service,
15 wp 1218.2013+ 74.
Ravindra Mansing Salunke Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 75.
Prashant Manohar Warade Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 76.
Vivek Dattatraya Choudhari Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 77.
Ramdas Bhagwan Lonkar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 78.
Sanjali Atmaram Desai Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 79.
Bhushan Popat Patil Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 80.
Parvin Abhiman Jagtap Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 81.
Anil Vilas Chothe Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 82.
Abhay Tulshiram Sangamwar Age: Major, Occu.: Service, 83.
Rincy Anthoney Chelte Age: Major, Occu.: Service ..Respondents (Formal Parties) ...
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. V. D. Salunke AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3:
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No.5: Mr. N. L. Jadhav Advocate for Respondents No. 13: Ms. P. S. Talekar Advocate for Respondents No. 21&35: Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. P. S. Dighe, Advocate i/b. Mr. V. R. Dhorde Advocate for Respondents No. 27 & 28:
Mr. B. G. Sagde ...
AND
16 wp 1218.2013+ ...
WRIT PETITION NO.5223 OF 2011 The Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary 3rd Floor, Bank of India Building, Mahatma Gandhi road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 .. Petitioner
Versus
1.
Dhnanjay Keshavrao Sable Age: 30 years, Occupation: Service, Resident of: At Post Kokunda, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded 2.
Lalit Diliprao Thakare Age: 30 Years, Occupation: Service [Private] Resident of: At Post Kokunda, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded 3.
The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 4.
Sandip Narayan Narwane Age: 31 Years, Occupation Nil Resident of: C-6, Flat No. 201, Vedant Complex, Vartak nagar, Thane [West] 5.
Shaikh Javed Hussain Age: 27 Years, Occupation: Service [Private] Resident of: 19, Bagorza, HUDCO, Delhi gate, Ahmadnagar 6.
Sanjay Mohansing Rathod Age: 39 Years, Occupation: Nil Resident of: Gurusahani Nagar, Back side of High Court, Plot No. 6, House No. 4/32/164, Sector N-4, CIDCO,
17 wp 1218.2013+ Aurangabad .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni AGP for Respondent / State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande ...
AND ...
WRIT PETITION NO.4470 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9861 OF 2011 1.
Sujit S/o Rangnath Bhadke, Aged: 31 Years, Occu.: Private Service, R/o Flat No.B-18, Survey No.21/P, Samruddhi Park, Beed Bye-pass Road, Aurangabad 2.
Baliram s/o Damodar Marewad, Age: 41 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Kasliwal Marble, Beed-By Pass, Aurangabad .. Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400 001, Through its Secretary 3.
Sandeep S/o Narayan Narwane, Aged: 31 Years, Occu.: Nil, R/o. C-6, Flat No. 201, Vedant Complex, Vartak Nagar,
18 wp 1218.2013+ Thane (West) 4.
Sanjay Mohansingh Rathod, Aged: 39 Years, Occu.: Nil, R/o.: C/o. Guru Sahani Nagar, Behind High Court, Plot No. 6, House No. 4/32/164, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad 5.
Dhananjay Keshavrao Sable, Aged: 30 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: At Post Kokunda, Tq.: Kinwat, Dist.: Nanded 6.
Lalit Diliprao Thakare, Aged: 30 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Ashtavinayak Nagar, Shivaji Nagar (East), Jail Road - Nashik Road, Nashik .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. P. S. Dighe i/b. Mr. V. R.
Dhorde AGP for Respondent / State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Mukul Kulkarni Advocate for Respondents No. 5&6:
Mr. S. S. Jadhavar ...
AND ...
WRIT PETITION NO.5216 OF 2011 1.
Sujit s/o Rangnath Bhadke, Aged: 31 Years, Occ.: Private Service, R/o. Flat No. B-18, Survey No.21/P, Samruddhi Park, Beed Bye-pass Road, Aurangabad 2.
Baliram Damodhar Marewad,
19 wp 1218.2013+ Age: 41 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: At present Kasliwal Marble, Beed Bypass, Satara Parisar, Aurangabad .. Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400 001, Through its Secretary 3.
Mohan s/o Ganpatrao Kalaskar, Aged: 34 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: House No. 1/12/51, Near Dr. Somani's House, Vasant Nagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist.: Nanded .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. P. S. Dighe, Advocate i/b. Mr. V. R. Dhorde AGP for Respondent / State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Mukul Kulkarni ...
AND ...
WRIT PETITION NO.5224 OF 2011 The Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary 3rd Floor, Bank of India Building, Mahatma Gandhi road, Fort,
20 wp 1218.2013+ Mumbai 400 001 .. Petitioner
Versus
1.
Mohan Ganpatrao Kalaskar Age: 34 Years, Occupation: Service, Resident of: House No. 1/12/51, Near Dr. Somanies House, Vasant nagar, Nanded 2.
The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Kulkarni AGP for Respondent / State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande ...
AND ...
WRIT PETITION NO.6830 OF 2015 Anil s/o Kakasaheb Ugile Age: 45 Years, Occu.: Nil R/o C/o Datta Chewle, Opp. Jindal Tower, Majge Nagar, Kawa Road, Latur - 12 .. Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through is Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Deptt.
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 Through its Secretary 3.
Dhananjay s/o Keshvrao Sable,
21 wp 1218.2013+ Age: 34 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: At Post Gokunda, Tq.: Kinwat, Dist.: Nanded 4.
Lalit s/o Diliprao Thakare, Age: 34 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: At Post Gokunda, Tq.: Kinwat, Dist.: Nanded 5.
Sandeep s/o Narayan Narwane, Age: 35 Years, Occu: Nil, R/o C-6, Flat No. 2, Vedant Complex, Vartak Nagar, Thane West 6.
Shaikh Javed Hus Age: 32 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o 19, Bagre, HUDCO, Delhi Gate, Aurangabad .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. K. M. Nagarkar AGP for Respondent / State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande ...
AND ...
WRIT PETITION NO.4199 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2730 OF 2012 1.
Sanjay s/o Mohansingh Rathod, Age: 39 Years, Occu.: Nil, R/o House No.4/32/164, Plot No.6, Gursahani Nagar, Backside of High Court, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad 2.
Sandip s/o Narayan Narwane, Age: 31 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: C-6, Plot No. 201, Vedant Complex, Vartak Nagar, Thane (West) .. Petitioners
22 wp 1218.2013+
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032 2.
Maharashtra Public Service Commission, 2nd Floor, Bank of India Building, Hutatma Chowk, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Mumbai - 400 001 3.
Lalit s/o Diliprao Thakre, Age: 30 Years, Occu.: Service, In Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Kalwa, District Thane 4.
Shaikh Javed Hussain Age: 27 Years, Occu.: Pvt. Service, R/o.: 19, Bag Roza, HUDCO, Delhi Gate, Ahmednagar .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioners: Ms. P. S. Talekar AGP for Respondent / State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Mukul Kulkarni Advocate for Applicant [CA/2730/2012]:
Mr. M. C. Swami ...
AND ...
WRIT PETITION NO.5209 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14376 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7104 OF 2015 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9699 OF 2021 1.
Dnyaneshwar s/o Mohan Darandale, Age: 33 Years, Occupation: Private Service, R/o.: Landewadi (Sonai), Tq.: Newasa,
23 wp 1218.2013+ District: Ahmednagar 2.
Chandrakant S/o Arjun More, Age: 35 Years, Occupation: Private Service, R/o.: 22, Saraswati Colony, Near Bus Stand, Sindkheda, District: Dhule .. Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400 001 Through its Secretary 3.
Sandeep S/o Narayan Narwane, Aged: 31 Years, Occu.: Nil, R/o.: C-6, Flat NO. 201, Vedant Complex, Vartak Nagar, Thane (West) 4.
Sanjay Mohansingh Rathod, Aged: 39 Years, Occu.: Nil, R/o. C/o. Guru Shani Nagar, Behind High Court, Plot No. 6, House No. 4/32/164, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad 5.
Dhananjay Keshavrao Sable, Age: 30 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: At Post Kokunda, Tq.: Kinwat, Dist.: Nanded 6.
Lalit Diliprao Thakare, Age: 30 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: at Post Kokunda, Tq.: Kinwat, Dist.: Nanded
24 wp 1218.2013+ 7.
Shaikh Javed Hussain, Age: 27 Years, Occu.: Private Service, R/o.: Bagroza HUDCO, Delhi Gate, Ahmednagar 8.
Santoshsing S/o Kapurchandsing Rajput, 29 years, Occu.: Service, At Post Jaikwadi (South), Tq.: Paithan, Dist.: Aurangabad 9.
Parag S/o Narayanrao Pathare, Age: 37 Years, Occu.: Govt. Service, R/o. C/o. Smt. S. B. Raut, B-70/1, "Aasra" Devanagari, Shahanoorwadi, Dargah Road, Dist.: Aurangabad 10.
Pankaj S/o Liladhar Yewale, Age: 32 Years, Occu.: Govt. Service, R/o.: 71, Laxmi Nagar, Behind Sindhi Colony, District: Jalgaon .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. B. G. Sagade AGP for Respondent / State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. Mukul Kulkarni Advocate for Respondents No. 8 to 10:
Mr. M. C. Swami ...
AND ...
WRIT PETITION NO.4506 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9681 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14498 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14500 OF 2011 Mahesh s/o Vinayakrao Deshpande, Age: 34 Years, Occu.: Educated unemployed, R/o.: Parali Vaijinath, Tq.: Parali Vaijinath District: Beed .. Petitioner
25 wp 1218.2013+
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary Medical Education and Drugs Deptt, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hutmatma Chowk, Mumbai 400 001 Through its Secretary 3.
Lalit s/o Diliprao Thakare, Age: 30 Years, Occu.: Service (Private) R/o. Ashtavinayak Nagar, Shivaji Nagar, Jail Road, Nashik Road, Nashik 4.
Mohan s/o Ganpatrao Kalaskar, Age: 34 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: House No. 1/12/51, Near Dr. Somanies House, Vasant Nagar, Nanded Tq. and District: Nanded .. Respondents ...
Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr. A. V. Hon AGP for Respondent / State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Mukul Kulkarni ...
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
Reserved For Judgment On:
28.10.2021 Judgment Pronounced on:
18.02.2022 Judgment (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.):
1.
All these Writ Petitions are based on common set of facts and involve common question of
26 wp 1218.2013+ law. To avoid rigmarole are decided by common Judgment.
2.
Writ Petition Nos. 4199 of 2011, 5209 of 2011, 4506 of 2011, 4470 of 2011, 5216 of 2011, 5223 of 2011, 5224 of 2011 and 5830 of 2015 assail the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 03.05.2011 in Original Application Nos. 70 of 2011 and 191 of 2011. Under the said order, the Tribunal partly allowed the Original Application. The Select List prepared by the MPSC on the basis the marks obtained in the Interview is quashed and set aside. The other reliefs claimed in the Original Application are rejected. In Original Application No. 70 of 2011 the original Applicants assailed the criteria of selection adopted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) for preparing the Select List of the post of Drug Inspector General State Service, Group-B in Food and Drugs Administration thereby selecting the candidates only on the basis of the marks obtained in the interview and sought directions to quash
27 wp 1218.2013+ the Select List prepared and further sought directions against the MPSC to prepare the Select List on the basis of the criteria declared in the Advertisement No. 069 of 2008 dated 29.07.2008 i.e. on the basis of the marks obtained in the Written Examination as well as the Interview. By amendment, additional relief was claimed by the Original Applicants and challenged the Rule 7(II) and (9) of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2005 as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
3.
In Original Application No. 191 of 2011, the Applicant challenged the Select List prepared for filing up the post of Drug Inspector, however, sought direction to consider the marks obtained by the candidates in written as well as interview and further sought inquiry.
4.
The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1218 of 2013 challenged the order of the Tribunal in Original Application No. 535 of 2012 dated 27.11.2012 and further sought directions to
28 wp 1218.2013+ appoint him as Drug Inspector. He also sought direction to set aside the recommendations of the candidates for the post of Drug Inspectors, more particularly, Respondents No. 3 to 24 and 70 to
78. The other prayers were similar to the one made in Writ Petition No. 13920 of 2019. In Original Application No. 535 of 2012 the Original Applicant made similar prayers made in Writ Petition No. 1218 of 2013. Under order dated 27.11.2012 the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application by giving liberty to the Original Applicant to file fresh Original Application specifying different grounds in the proper perspective of the order passed in Original Application No. 63 of 2011 and also the order passed by High Court in Writ Petition No. 1149 of 2011. According to the Petitioner this Court had directed the tribunal to decide Original Application No. 535 of 2012 on merits. The Petitioner had not sought liberty to withdraw said Original Application. The Petitioner was asked to submit the grounds raised in the Original Application different than other Original
29 wp 1218.2013+ Application. The Petitioner sought leave to fie Miscellaneous Application stating the grounds but the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application of the Petitioner. The Court had directed tribunal to decide Original Application No. 535 of 2012 with Original Application No. 63 of 2011 within 6 months but instead Original Application No. 535 of 2012 was disposed of with liberty to file fresh Original Application. The Petitioner contends that he had not prayed for withdrawal of Original Application No. 535 of 2012. In view of that has filed Writ Petition No. 1218 of 2013 requesting the Court to decide it finally in the High Court. 5.
Writ Petition No. 13920 of 2019 is filed in High Court directly on the ground that tribunal did not decide the matter on merits and though the Petitioners therein had not requested for withdrawal of the Original Application the tribunal passed order directing withdrawal of the Original Application. The Petitioners requested this Court to decide the Petition on merits. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13920 of 2019
30 wp 1218.2013+ challenge the recruitment process conducted by he MPSC pursuant to the Advertisements dated 21.12.2007, 11.02.2008 and 29.07.2008 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners have challenged the Notifications of the recommendation of the candidates for the post of Drug Inspectors published by MPSC on 2nd and 3rd December, 2010 and directed De novo recruitment process. The Petitioners therein sought directions against the MPSC to recommend the names of the Petitioners and to appoint them on the posts of Drug Inspectors and further cancel the subsequent appointment orders recommended by the MPSC to the candidates who are ineligible. The Petitioners therein also challenged Rule 5.13.1 and 5.13.2 as arbitrary, illegal. The Petitioners sought directions to rectify the ambiguity of Section 9 (ii) and (iii) of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2005.
6.
The factual matrix in nutshell can be culled out as under.
31 wp 1218.2013+ 7.
Three Advertisements were issued inviting applications for the post of Drug Inspectors. The first Advertisement is dated 21.12.2007 for 48 posts to be filled in from General category candidates. The second Advertisement is dated 11.02.2008 for filling in 32 posts from Reserved Category candidates. The 3rd Advertisement dated 29.07.2008 was for filling in 16 posts from General category candidates.
8.
The Written Examination pursuant to all 3 Advertisements was held at the same time. The Select List was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in Interview and the marks obtained in the Written Examination were not considered. The Original Application came to be filed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal under it's Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2011 in Original Application Nos. 70 of 2011 and 191 of 2011 set aside the Select List prepared by the MPSC on the basis of the marks obtained in Oral Interview. The rest of the reliefs claimed were
32 wp 1218.2013+ negatived. The Tribunal observed in Paragraph No. 43 of the order that the entire process of selection stands quashed and set aside, as such, the relief regarding inquiry of process of selection was not considered. The Tribunal observed that the criteria published in the Advertisement as Point No. 7.6 is not in tune with the procedural Rules of the MPSC however relief was not granted to the Applicants in the Original Applications.
9.
In Advertisement No. 069 of 2008, more particularly, Clause 7.6 prescribed that the combined Screening Test for all the candidates who applied in accordance with Advertisement No. 015, 020 and this Advertisement No. 069 will be held on 05.10.2008 at Mumbai Centre only. The marks obtained in Written Test will be added to the marks obtained in the Interview to decide the final result. The earlier 2 Advertisements vide No. 015 of 2007 and 020 of 2008 does not prescribe for considering the marks obtained in the Screening Test. It does not specifically state
33 wp 1218.2013+ that the marks obtained in the Screening Test will be added to the marks obtained in the Interview. Along with the application form the Prospectus were also supplied. The final Select List is published on the basis o the Interviews. The marks obtained in the Screening Test / Written Test are not considered.
10.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
11.
The learned Advocates challenging the Judgment of the Tribunal setting aside the Select List on the basis of the marks obtained in oral interview submits that Tribunal on one hand has upheld the rule and on other hand has set aside the Select List on the ground that the marks in the Screening Test are not considered. The relevant Rule does not mandate marks obtained in the Screening Test to be considered. It is only meant for shortlisting of candidates and the marks for Oral Interview are only required to be considered for direct recruits. It is not open for
34 wp 1218.2013+ the candidates participating in the selection process without protest to assail the procedure adopted. It is further submitted that as only marks in the viva voce are required to be considered as per the Rules the MPSC had corrected the mistake as that are cropped up in the last Advertisement No. 69 of 2008 and as such the same was done in consonance with the Rules which is permissible. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Apex court in case of Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna and others Vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal and others reported in (2011) 7 SCC
308. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Rajya Sabha Secretariat and others Vs. Subhash Baloda and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 169 and it is further submitted that in absence of any provision in the statutory Rules shortlisting can be done on the basis of the administrative instructions. It is further submitted that all the necessary parties are required to be added. All those who have been issued with the appointment orders have not been
35 wp 1218.2013+ made parties. The Petition deserves to be fail on the said count. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bhagwanti and others Vs. subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and another reported in 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 663. In case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768. The reliance is also placed on the Judgments of the Apex Court in cases of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507, Ashish Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55 so also Javid Ahmad Mir and others Vs. State of J and K and others reported in 2019 SCC Online J&K 542.
12.
The learned Advocates for the Original Applicants before the Tribunal submit that the Advertisement No. 069 of 2008, more particularly, Clause 7.6, specifically provides that the marks obtained in the Written Test will be added to the marks obtained in the interview and the combined marks would be considered. Deviation therefrom was
36 wp 1218.2013+ not permissible. The Tribunal has rightly considered the said aspect of the matter. The selection criteria and the procedure published in the Advertisement are required to be adhered to and if the process is continued dehors the procedure prescribed in the Advertisement the same would be illegal. To substantiate their submissions that once Advertisement is issued selection process should continue as per the Advertisement and deviation therefrom is not permissible. The learned Counsel rely upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan Sharma and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1657. Another Judgment of the Apex Court in case of K. Manjusree etc Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in AIR 2008 SC 1470. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Oral Interview Test is not a satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ajay Hasia etc. Vs. Khalid Mujib
37 wp 1218.2013+ Sehavardi and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 (1).
13.
It would appear that the Advertisement No. 015 of 2007 and 020 of 2008 did not prescribe that the marks in the Screening Test would be considered and added to the marks obtained in the interviews. Only Advertisement No. 069 of 2008 prescribed that the marks obtained in the Screening Test would be considered and added to the marks obtained in the Oral Interviews. The combined selection process was undertaken after the 3rd Advertisement.
14.
It would be relevant to consider the relevant Rules.
Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2005 reads thus- "Rule 7. Mode of RecruitmentThe Commission on receipt of a requisition from the Government, in respect of posts to be filled up by nomination shall adopt any one of the following methods for recruitment, viz.:- (i) Competitive Examination.
(ii) Direct recruitment.
38 wp 1218.2013+ (iii) Competitive Examination may also be held limited to departmental candidates only.
(I) Competitive Examination.- A Competitive Examination may consist of any one or more of the following viz.:- (I) Written Preliminary Examination.
(ii) Written Main Examination.
(iii) Physical Test (iv) Interviews (II) Direct recruitment - Shall consist of any of the following:- (i) By interviews only when the number of eligible applicants is within the proportion prescribed under the provision of Rule 9 (i).
(ii) First by shortlisting candidates by applying criteria and thereafter by interview of the short-listed candidates.
(iii) By holding the screening test of the eligible candidates for shortlisting candidates based on their merit of the screening test and interview of such short listed candidates."
Rule 9(iv) of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2005 reads thus- "9.
Direct Recruitment - (iv) In every case where the Commission decide to hold screening test the Commission may also prescribe the syllabus, type and the number of questions, duration of the test, the marking system etc. The marks obtained by these candidates in the screening test shall be taken into account only for the purpose of shortlisting of candidates for interview and shall not be taken into account for the final selection."
39 wp 1218.2013+ Further, Part 5 of the Application Form following Clauses find place - "(5-4-1) vk;ksxkP;k LosPNkf/kdkjkuqlkj pkG.kh ijh{kk] vFkok fud"k fuf'pr d:u eqyk[krhP;k vk/kkjs ik= mesnokjkaph fuoM dj.;kr ;sbZy-" "(5-4-2) pkG.kh ijh{kk Äs.;kps fuf'pr >kY;kl ijh{ksrhy xq.k vafre xq.koRrk ;knhe/;s fopkjkr ?;ko;kps vkgsr] fdaok dls] ;kfo"k;h izdj.kijRos fu.kZ; Äs.;kr ;sbZy-"
15.
Rule 9(iv) as reproduced above clarifies that in every case where the commission decides to hold Screening Test the marks obtained by the candidates in the Screening Test shall be taken into account only for the purpose of shortlisting of the candidates for interview and shall not be taken into account for the final selection.
16.
The Written Test as held was a Screening Test for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates for the interview. The Rule does not authorize the MPSC to consider the marks obtained in the Screening Test for the final selection and the selection is to be made on the basis of the interviews only. Under Clauses 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 of the Part 5 of the Application Form discretion is
40 wp 1218.2013+ retained by the MPSC to consider whether the marks of the Screening Test are to be added while preparing the Select List. However, Rule 9(iv) of the Rules is abundantly clear. Rule 7 of the Rules laying down mode of recruitment also prescribes that the direct recruitment would be by interviews only when the number of eligible applicants is within the proportion prescribed under Rule 9 (i). Rule 7 (ii) prescribes that the candidates will be first shortlisted by applying the criteria and thereafter by interview of the shortlisted candidates. Clause (iii) of Rule 7 prescribes that the MPSC may hold the Screening Test of the eligible candidates for shortlisting the candidates based on their merit of the Screening Test and interview of such shortlisted candidates. 17.
Rule 9(iv) and Rule 7, as discussed above, leaves no room for doubt that the direct recruitment is based on the interviews and the marks obtained in the Screening Test is only meant for shortlisting the candidates. The Screening Test is not required to be conducted if the number
41 wp 1218.2013+ of eligible Applicants is within the proportion prescribed under Rule 9(i). It is only if the Applicants are more then the question of shortlisting the candidates arrives, so also, holding the Screening Test. The Screening Test is held only for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates and not beyond that. The first 2 Advertisement also did not prescribe for considering the marks obtained in the Screening Test. It is only in the 3rd Advertisement bearing No. 069 of 2008 Clause 7.6 prescribes that the marks obtained in the Written Test will be added to the marks obtained in the interview to decide the final result. The combined Screening Test was held of all the candidates applying pursuant to all the 3 Advertisements. Even the 3rd Advertisement prescribes the same.
18.
Rule 9(iv) read with Rule 7 permits the Screening Test only for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates and no further and the select list is prepared pursuant to the marks obtained in the interviews. The reliance was
42 wp 1218.2013+ placed by the Tribunal and the learned Counsel appearing in the Original Application on the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan Sharma and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1657 to submit that when once Advertisement for appointment is issued based on Government Circular, change in eligibility criteria, during selection process is not permissible.
19.
It is to be noted that the eligibility criteria is not changed, the qualification remained the same. The 2 Advertisements also did not contain a Clause that the marks obtained in the Screening Test will be added to the marks of the interview. It was only the 3rd Advertisement prescribing consideration of the marks obtained in the Screening Test. The Advertisement cannot be beyond the Rules. Rule 9 (iv) specifically states that the Screening Test is only for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates and no further. The marks obtained in the interview are only required to be considered. The Rules specifically lays down
43 wp 1218.2013+ the modality of selecting the candidates. The Clauses of the Advertisement cannot go beyond the Rules. Moreover, prior to the interview the decision, it appears, is taken by the MPSC to prepare the Select List on the basis of the marks obtained in the interviews. The same is applied to all the candidates. The candidates participated in the selection process without demur now they cannot contend otherwise. It has been held by the Apex Court in case of Ashish Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2018 (3) SCC 55 that if there is variance in the Advertisement and the Statutory Rules, the statutory rules would take precedence. The Rules of Procedure 2005 of MPSC specifically provides that the marks obtained in the Screening Test are only meant for shortlisting and the selection is to be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the interview. In view of that, it would be futile now for the Original Applicants before the Tribunal to contend, that too, after participating in the
44 wp 1218.2013+ selection process that the marks in the Screening Test ought to have been added.
20.
In the light of above, the impugned Judgments of the Tribunal setting aside the Select List on the ground that the marks in the Screening Test were not added is set aside.
21.
Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 4597 of 2019 dated May 3, 2019 and submits that the research experience in research and development laboratory cannot be equated with the experience in the manufacturing and testing of drugs. Many selected candidates do not possess the experience in manufacturing and testing of drugs and possess experience only in research and development laboratory. According to the learned Counsel some of the Candidates gave forged documents. Such candidates were ineligible to be
45 wp 1218.2013+ appointed. The learned Counsel gave a list of such candidates.
22.
According to the Advocates for the selected candidates, the Central Rules nowhere prescribed possessing the experience in manufacture and testing of drugs and it is open for the employer to prescribe for the qualification. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in case of Kuldeep Singh and others Vs. State of U. P. and another reported in (2014) 104 ALR 698 and also Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 18.02.2020 in case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Nidhi Pandey and another.
It is further contended that if there is variance in Advertisement and Statutory Rules, the Statutory Rules shall prevail. Reliance is placed on the Judgments of the Apex Court in case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507, Ashish Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55 so also
46 wp 1218.2013+ Javid Ahmad Mir and others Vs. State of J and K and others reported in 2019 SCC Online J&K 542. 23.
The Advertisement pursuant to which the Petitioners and the Respondents had filled in the application prescribes the qualification to be possessed by the candidate for the post of Drugs Inspector. The Rules are framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State of Maharashtra namely the Joint Commissioner (Drugs), Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drugs Inspector in the Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State (Recruitment) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules-2002").
24.
The qualification prescribed for the appointment to the post of Drugs Inspector under the Rules-2002 is provided under Rule 5. The same reads thus- "5.
Appointment to the post of Drugs Inspector, in the Food and Drugs Administration shall be made:- by nomination from amongst the candidates who,- (a) unless already in the service of Government are not more that 35 years of age;
47 wp 1218.2013+ (b) a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical chemistry or Medicine with specialisation in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by Law;
(c) possess practical experience gained after acquiring above qualification in the manufacture or testing of drugs or enforcement of the provisions of the Act for a period of not less that three years:
Provided further that, preference may be given to candidates having a post-graduate degree in the subject mentioned in sub-clause (b) of this rule or research experience in the synthesis and testing of drugs or practical experience in the manufacture of drugs:
Provided further that, the age limit may be relaxed in the case of candidates who possess exceptional qualification or experience or both. "
25.
The recruitment of the persons to the post of Drug Inspectors in the Food and Drugs Administration Maharashtra State would be governed by the Rules operating in the field. The qualification prescribed in the Rules will have to be complied with. The persons should have the necessary qualification as prescribed under the Rules as on the date of filling in the application pursuant to the Advertisement. The Advertisement and the Rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State of
48 wp 1218.2013+ Maharashtra prescribe the same qualifications. A person for being eligible to be appointed by nomination on the post of Drug Inspector has to possess practical experience gained after acquiring the qualifications mentioned therein in the manufacture or testing of Drugs or enforcement of the provisions of the Act for a period of not less than 3 years. The necessary qualification prescribed under the Rules and the Advertisement cannot be diluted or done away with.
26.
The Apex Court in case of The Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others (supra) has observed that experience of testing has to be corelated to the manufacturing process which naturally will be entirely different from the testing carried out in the research and development laboratory before the produce is released for manufacture and sale in the market. The experience in testing of drugs in the research and development laboratory and the testing done at the time of manufacture before sale cannot be the
49 wp 1218.2013+ same and has to be rejected. The Apex Court in the said Judgment also observed that it is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirement a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of the work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can delve into the issue with regard to the desirable qualifications. If the language of the Advertisement and the Rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in Judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the Advertisement or it is contrary to any Rules or law the matter has to go back to the Appointing Authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. The Apex Court further observed in the said Judgment that in no case can the Court in the garb of judicial review sit in the chair of the Appointing Authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the Advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. In the said case viz. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through
50 wp 1218.2013+ Its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others (supra) the M.P.S.C. challenged the Judgment of the High Court. The High Court held that candidates possessing the requisite years of experience in research and development of drugs and testing of the same are also eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspector. It was the contention of the M.P.S.C. that such candidates are ineligible and it's stand was accepted by the Apex Court. The clause in the Advertisement in the matter before the Apex Court prescribing experience for being eligible to apply for post of Drug Inspector and that in the present Advertisement is at verbatim the same.
27.
In the case of Kuldeep Singh and others Vs. State of U. P. and another (supra) the Full Bench of the Allhabad High Court was required to consider "whether the experience required in the Proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is only a bar of authorisation to inspect the manufacture of substances, or is an
51 wp 1218.2013+ essential qualification under Rule 49 for direct appointment as Drug Inspector under Rule 5(4) of the Uttar Pradesh State Drug Control Gazetted Officers' Service Rules, 1995. The Full Bench in said case held that the experience referred to in First Proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 has not been made an essential qualification for appointment as Drug Inspector. The effect of First Proviso is that only an inspector who holds the experience as specified in it is authorised to inspect the manufacture of a substance specified in Schedule 'C' to the Rules. In the said case, the Uttar Pradesh State Drug Control Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules-1995") were enacted by the Government in supersession of all existing Rules and Orders to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Gazetted service of State Drug Control Officers in Uttar Pradesh. Rule 8 of Rules-1995 prescribing academic qualification of candidates appointed by direct recruitment to
52 wp 1218.2013+ the post of Inspector of Drugs suggests that candidate must possess such qualification as have been prescribed under the Rules made by the Central Government.
28.
In the present matter, the Rules are framed by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India regarding the recruitment to the post of Joint Commissioner (Drugs), Group-A, Assistant Commissioner (Drugs), Group-A and Drugs Inspector, Group-B in the Food and Drugs Administration under Medical Education and Drugs Department of the Government of Maharashtra namely the "Joint Commissioner (Drugs), Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drugs Inspector in the Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State (Recruitment) Rules, 2002. Rule 5 therein prescribes the qualification and experience possessed by a candidate for appointment to the post of Drugs Inspector in the Food and Drugs Administrationunder under Medical Education and Drugs Department of the Government
53 wp 1218.2013+ of Maharashtra. The qualification and experience prescribed in the Advertisement and said Statutory Rules is same. The same has been interpreted by the Apex Court in case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others (Supra).
29.
The next contention of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1218 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 13920 of 2019 is that the selection for the candidates is not on merits. Many of the selected candidates did not possess the minimum qualification set out in the Advertisements and the Rules. Some of the candidates have filed forged documents and still are selected. On these grounds the appointments are also assailed.
30.
The documents filed by the persons who are selected and the validity of the Select List qua the qualification, eligibility criteria and the marks obtained were not subject to scrutiny before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It would be difficult for this Court in it's writ
54 wp 1218.2013+ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to verify the genuineness of each and every documents and also to consider the eligibilities submitted by them, more particularly, when there are rival contentions in that regard. The Committee was also constituted to verify the documents and the eligibility of the selected candidates. The selected candidates have also affirmed that the re-verification was done by the Committee and it was found that the documents submitted by those persons selected were genuine. The complete details are not placed by the MPSC of the re-verification done. In absence thereto, it will not be possible for this Court to give a conclusive finding.
31.
It has been contented by Mr. Salunke, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the following candidates were ineligible to be appointedAbstracted data of ineligible candidates for the post R & D EXPERIENCE CANDIDATES Resp.
Name of Candidate Ineligibility Point Rule of M.P.S.C.
Exhibit-Page Documents Page No.
No in Writ Petition 114 to 124
55 wp 1218.2013+ R 14 Shashikant P. Yadav Not eligible, no relevant document 4.1.13.2, 4.1.13.5, 4.1.13.6, 582 TO 594 submitted. Not eligible due to R & 5.3.14 Dexperience.
R 18 Vijay Vithal Nangare Not eligibledue to 5.3.10, 5.3.16, 482 TO 493 R & D experience.
Photo not affixed.
5.3.25, 5.3.14 Non Creamylayer Certificate has not submitted. Higher income.
R 20 Manish V. Gotmare No relevant experience, not eligible due to R & 6.14.1, 5.3.14 394 TO 401 D experience, Misleading information given, Trainee.
Documents not attached in writ petition to avoid bulkiness Resp.
Name of Candidate Ineligibility Point Rule of M.P.S.C Documents Page No.
Exhibit-Page No in Submission 114 to 124 R 28 Sunil Gawali No relevant experience, not eligible due to R & 4.1.13.5, 4.1.13.8, 01 TO 12 5.3.14 D experience R 25 Prashant Rajendra No relevant experience, not eligible due to R & 4.1.13.5, 4.1.13.8, 13 TO 22 Ramteke 5.3.14 D experience R 31 Prachi Durgasingh Non Creamylayer Certificate has not 5.3.25, 4.1.13.5, 23 TO 31 Rathod submitted. No 5.3.14, 4.1.13.8 relevant experience, not eligible due to R & D experience R 62 Shubhangi Sadashiv No relevant experience, not eligible due to R & 4.1.13.5, 4.1.13.8, 32 TO 41 Bankar 5.3.14 D experience R 34 Punam Raghuvir No relevant experience, not eligible due to R & 4.1.13.5, 4.1.13.8, 42 TO 51 Pednekar 5.3.14 D experience R 24 Smt. Tazi S. Farahat No relevant experience, not eligible due to R & 4.1.13.5, 4.1.13.8, 52 TO 59 Abdul Kahlil 5.3.14 D experience CANDIDATES PRODUCED FAKE / FORGED EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE Resp.
Name of Candidate Ineligibility Point Rule of M.P.S.C.
Exhibit-Page Documents Page No.
No in Writ Petition 114 to 124 R 4 Rajesh Baburao Bankar Forge Document 6.14.1, 4.2.7 670 TO 672 submitted R 5 Ajay Mangalprasad Forge Document 6.14.1, 4.2.7 Mahule submitted
56 wp 1218.2013+ R 6 Suresh S. Deshmukh Fake certificate 4.1.4, 5.3.20 433 TO 444 produced about Marathi Language.
No Marathi subject in SSC page no 441 R 13 Anjali M. Mitkar Supress the fact as 6.3.1, 6.14.1, 305 TO 318 & Trainee, not qualified. No 6.14.2.4, 6.14.2.5, 4.1.13.4, 683 TO 687 relevant experience. Fake 4.1.13.5 experience certificate produced, *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no 683-687 R 19 Nitin Pandurang Aher No relevant document produced 5.3.14, 5.3.19, 533 TO 543 & 5.3.24 & 25 at the time of interview. Despite direction on interview call letter. Forge experience certificate submitted. *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no. 652 R 21 Jeevan D. Jadhav No relevant dicument produced 4.1.13, 5.3 522 TO 532 & at the time of interview. Despite direction on interview call letter. Forge experience certificate produced *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no 658 R 22 Suhas Tanaji Sawant No relevant experience.
4.1.13.4, 5.3.14, 4.2.7, 319 TO 327 Misleading information, Special treatment 6.3.1 by M.P.S.C., Trainee experience R 23 Mahesh Vinayakrao No relevant document produced t 6.14.1, 4.2.7 544 TO 550 & Deshpande 654 TO 655 the time of interview. Despite direction on interview call letter. *Govt scrutiny report on page no 654-655 (Forge experience certificate produced) R 32 Rakesh Manoharrao Forge document submitted, Govt.
Scrutiny report on 6.14.1, 4.2.7 Edlawar page no 668 R 35 Varsha Madhukar No relevant document produced 5.3.25 551 TO 559 & Choudhari at the time of interview. Despite direction on
57 wp 1218.2013+ interview call letter. Non Creamylayer Certificate has not submitted. *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no 653 (Forge experience certificate produced) CANDIDATES HAVING LESS EXPERIENCE Resp .No.
Name of Candidate Ineligibility Point Rule of M.P.S.C.
ExhibitDocuments Page No in Documents Page No in Submission Writ Petition to 124 R 8 Anil Madhavrao No relevant experience, Suppress 4.1.13.4, 371 TO 384 Manikrao 5.3.14, trainee Experience 6.14.1 R 10 Mahesh B.
Kautikwar No relevant experience. He 4.1.13.4, 328 TO 341 81 TO 85 5.3.14 mentioned the experience as medical shop keeper.
Experience certificate issued himself R 12 Jawed Hussain No relevant dicument produced at the time of interview. Despite direction on interview 5.3.24, 569 TO 581 86 TO 104 Shaikh 6.14.1 call letter. Trainee experience R 16 Swati Sudhakar Not relevant experience, Trainee 4.1.13.4, 352 TO 360 Bharde 5.3.14 R 17 Monika Arun Not relevant experience, Trainee 4.1.13.4, 361 TO 370 Mohod 5.3.14 R 26 Madhav Jagannath Less experience, 4.1.13.4, 60 TO 70 Stipened basis experience not considered (*Govt.
6.14.1 Nimse Scrutiny report) R 27 Atish Shivaji No relevant experience, Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no 673 to 675 6.14.1 673 TO 675 Sarkale R 29 Pravin Haridas No relevant experience 71 to 80 Raut R 36 Satish H.
Non Creamylayer Certificate has not submitted. Submitted afterward. No relevant 5.3.25 514 TO 521 Chavan & 651 experience. *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no 651 R 37 Rohit s.
Not eligible, on the day of advertisement.
6.3.1, 4.1.13.5, 297 TO 304 Rathod & 662 No relevant experience. Less Experience mentioned in applicaiton 2 years 5.3.14, 4.1.13.4
58 wp 1218.2013+ 6 months, Supress the Trainee experience.
*Govt. Scrutiny report on page no 662 R 39 Sachin Ashok Not eligible, no relevant document submitted. Despite direction on interview 4.1.13.2, 4.1.13.5, 4.1.13.6, 4.1.13.7, 501 TO 513 Kamble call letter 5.3.24 R 40 Manoj Nandkumar Ayya No relevant experience.
Certificate doesn't match to experience *Govt. Scrutiny report 4.1.13.4, 402 TO 414 & 650 & 707 5.3.14 & 4.3.12.2 on page no 650, On interview dated 17/07/2009 Absent page no 707 CANDIDATES SUBMITTED NCL CERTIFICATE THOUGH HIGHER INCOME Resp.
Name of Candidate Ineligibility Point Rule of M.P.S.C.
Exhibit-Page Documents Page No.
No in Writ Petition 114 to 124 R 9 Abasaheb A. Raskar Excess income, no sufficient charges 5.3.16, 5.3.27, 455 TO 465 6.14.1 paid for application form, fals information given about NCL certificate VACANT POSTS, PARTICULARS OF CANDIDATES TERMINATED, RESIGNED, NOT JOINED THE POST Sr Resp .No.
Name of Candidate Ineligibility Rule of M.P.S.C.
(Page 114 Remark Documents Page No in .
No Point Writ Petition .
to 124) R71 Nitin Shankarrao Forge documents submitted. No 6.14.1, 6.14.12 & Terminated 280 TO 295, Devare from the 656 & 680 4.3.12.8 post of TO 682 relevant experience.
Assi.
Commissione *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page r due to forged document no 656, 680R70 Rupesh Ashrath Forge documents submitted. No 6.14.1, 6.14.2.12 & Terminated Whatkar from the post due to 4.3.12.7 relevant experience.
forged document *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no 667 R66 Madhuri Balkrushna Sali Not eligibl, 4.1.13.4, Resigned from the 385 TO 393 Less experience 5.3.14 post R67 Sujit Rangnath Excess income, 5.3.16, 5.3.27, Resigned from the 445 TO 454 Bhadke Non creamylayer Certificate has submitted 6.14.1 post
59 wp 1218.2013+ R68 Pramod Vithalrao Non Creamylayer Certificate dispute. Not belonging to 5.3.16, Resigned from the 466 TO 473 Radake 6.4.1 & 657 post Non Creamylayer due to higher income. Forge experience certificate produced *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no 657 R69 Pravin Aanurath Resigned from the Mhaske post R72 Mahesh Mahadev No relevant experience, 4.1.13.4, 5.3.14 and Not joined 416 TO 421 Jagtap the post & 649 *Govt.
Scrutiny report on page 4.3.12.2, 6.14.1 no 649 R73 Satish A.
Polshettiwar Forge documents submitted. No 6.14.1, 6.14.2.12 & Not joined 270 TO 279 the post & 661 4.3.12.8 relevant experience.
*Govt scrutiny report on page no 661 R74 Ravindra M.
Not eligible, on the day of advertisement.
4.1.13.2, Appointment 342 TO 351, Salunke 6.3.1 not given 659 TO 660 & 708 Experience.
Forge experience certificate produced. Not interviewed.
*Govt.
Scrutiny report on page no 659 to 660, on interview date 29/07/2009 absent R30 Hitesh Babubhai Resigned from the Parmar post R75 Prashant M.
Excess income, 5.3.25 Not joined 474 TO 481 Warade Non Creamylayer Certificate not attached the post R76 Vivek Dattatraya Resigned from the Choudhari post R77 Ramdas Bhagwan Resigned from the Lonkar post R78 Sanjali Atmaram Resigned
60 wp 1218.2013+ Desai from the post R79 Bhushan Popat Not joined Patil the post R80 Pravin Abhiman Fake certificate Not joined Jagtap produced R81 Anil Vilas Not joined Chothe the post R82 Abhay Tulshiram Not joined Sangamwar the post R83 Rincy Anthony Resigned from the Chelte post R15 Shrutika Kamalsing Jadhav Marathi Language, NCL not submitted 5.3.20, Recommended 422 TO 432 4.1.14 twice, not joined general post R43 Ganesh Ramchandra Recommended twice, Not Rokade joined SD post R55 Pravin Dinkar Recommended Harak twice, Not joined SD post 32.
According to Mr. Swami, learned Counsel for the Intervenors following candidates were ineligible to be appointed either because they did not possess the necessary qualification or has submitted forged documentsSr.
No.
Name of Candidate Category Parciculars Remark Shashikant P. Yadav SC Not eligible due to R and Stil on the D experience post Vijay Vithal Nangare NT D Not eligible due to R and Still on the D experience. NCL not produced at the time of post interview Manish V. Gotmare OBC Trainee experience, Not eligible due to R and D Still on the post experience Sunil Gawali OBC Not eligible due to R and Still on the D experience post Prashant Rejendra SC Noteligible due to R and Still on the Ramteke D experience post Prachi Durgasingh VJ A Not eligible due to R and Still on the
61 wp 1218.2013+ Rathod D experience post Shubhangi Sadashiv OBC Not eligible due to R and Still on the Bankar D experience post Punam Raghuvir OBC Not eligible due to R and Still on the Pednekar D experience post Smt. Tazi S. Farahat OPEN Not eligible due to R and Still on the Abdul Khalil D experience post Rajesh Baburao Bankar SC Forge Document submitted Still on the post Ajay Mangalprasad NT B Forge Document submitted Still on the Mahule post Anjali M. Mitkar OPEN Trainee experience 1 Year Still on the 9 Months experience of F post and D, Forge experience certificate submitted Nitin Pandurang Aher NT C NCL and experience certificate not produced at the time of interview.
Still on the post Forge experience certificate submitted Jeevan D. Jadhav OBC No relevant document produced at the time of Still on the post interview. Forge experience certificate produced Suhas Tanaji Sawant OPEN Trainee experience Still on the fabricated same certificate deleting "Trainee" hence less post experience Mahesh Vinayakrao OPEN Degree certificate not produced at the time of Still on the Deshpande post interview. Forge experience certificate submitted Rakesh Manoharrao NT B Forge experience certficate submitted Still on the Edlawar post Varsha Madhukar OBC NCL and experience certificate not produced at the time of interview.
Still on the Choudhari post Forge experience certificate submitted Anil Madhavrao OPEN Trainee Experience, Hence Still on the Manikrao less experience post Mahesh B. Kautikwar OPEN No relevant document produced at the time of interview. R and D (F and Still on the post D) experience, relevant experience 1 year 3 Months and 17 Days Jawed Hussain Shaikh OPEN Less Experience, Supress Still on the Trainee experience post Swati Sudhakar Bharde ST Trainee experience, Less Still on the experience post Monika Arun Mohod OBC Trainee experience, Less Still on the experience post Madhav Jagannath Nimse OPEN Supressed Trainee Still on the experience post Atish Shivaji Sarkate OBC Less Experience Still on the
62 wp 1218.2013+ post Pravin Haridas Raut OBC No relevant experience Still on the post Satish H. Chavan VJ A No relevant experience Still on the post Sachin Ashok Kamble SC No relevant document produced at the time of Still on the post interview, experience overlap during education Manoj Nandkumar Ayya OPEN Trainee experience, Less Still on the Experience, Absent for post scheduled interview Abasaheb A. Raskar OBC Higher Income irrespectively NCL Still on the post certificate 33.
According to the learned counsel for the selected and the appointed candidates, the said lists are incorrect. The lists submitted by the Counsel for the Intervenors and the Petitioners are incorrect. The selected candidates possess the necessary experience, qualification and are supported by genuine documents. There are many candidates who had refused to accept the appointment orders and tendered resignation. They are 28 in numbers. After the 4 Member Committee submitted Enquiry Report dated 09.01.2012, subsequently, Re-verification Report of the 4 Members Committee is also submitted. It clarified about the selected candidates possessing the necessary qualification and experience. One such report of the re-verification Committee is in
63 wp 1218.2013+ respect of One Manoj Nandkumar Ayya and another. The entire report after re-verification is not on record.
34.
Miss Talekar, the learned Counsel has given clarification in respect of some of the candidates. The same is as underSr.
NO.
Objections by the petitioner Explanation Mahesh Baljairao Kawatikar (Respondent No. 10) The Respondent No. 10 does not possess the requisite experience in manufacturing and drug testing. The documents in respect of his own medical shop cannot be considered against the requisite experience.
The petitioner possesses 3 and 1/2 years of experience in manufacturing and testing apart from running his own medical shop, details of which are as under:
Sr .
No .
Name of the Company From To Total period (Y/M/D) Maneesh Pharmaceutic als Ltd., Mumbai 29.09.19 16.01.20 01/10/15 Kopran Ltd., Savroli 17.01.20 29.01.20 01/03/17 Total Experience 03 years 02 months 02 days The respondent No. 10 had furnished the necessary documents in suport of his experience in manufacturing and drug testing as aforesaid, at the time of interview itself. However, the petitiner knowingly did not place on record the documents in respect of his service of the respondent No. 10 at Kopran Ltd., Savroli with a view to mislead this Hon'ble Court. Copy of the experience certiicate in respect of Kopran Ltd., Savroli submitted to the MPSC along with his application is annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-1".
Moreover, the Medical Education and Drugs Department, had constituted a Committee for examining the experience of the candidates who had applied for the post of the Drugs Inspector pursuant to various complaints received by it. The said Committee after holding due verification had categorically held that the respondent No. 10 possessed the necessary experience. (See p. 824 of the Writ Petition No. 1218/2013) The experience certificate issued by Maneesh The final mark sheet, although issued on 13.01.2000, was in respect of the examination
64 wp 1218.2013+ Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
submitted by the respondent NO. 10 is bogus and fabricated inasmuch as he was pursuing full-time M.Pharm cuorse at the relevant time.
The petitioner relies on the marksheet dated 13.01.2000 issued by the TamilNadu Dr.
MGR Medical University, Chennai in support of his allegation.
held in September, 1999. Thus, the respondent No. 10 had completed his full time course of M.Pharm in the month of September, 1999 and had joined the Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai immediately thereafter i.e. on 29.09.1999. As a matter of fact, the curriculum of the full-time M.Pharm course of respondent No. 10 had come to an end on submission of his dissertation on 24.08.1999 itself. The reliance on the said marksheet of the respondent No. 10 to establish that he was pursuing a full-time course during the period between 1999 to 2001, therefore, is fallacious and incorrect. Copy of the certificate of Principal endorsing the acceptance of Dissertation project on 24.08.1999 is annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-2".
Suhas Tanaji Sawant-Respondent No.22 The respondent No. 22 was working as a trainee (i.e.
on stipend) and therefore, his experience against the said post cannot be counted as per Rule 4.1.13.4 of the Rules of MPSC The respondent No. 22 was working on the post of "Trainee Officer - Quality Assurance" which is a full-time post in the extablishment of M.J. Biopharm Pvt. Ltd. The respondent No. 22 was not workign on a sitpend basis but was receiving complete salary including allowance during the period of his appointment as a full-time employee which is evident from his appointment order. Moreover, the R. 22 was issued an ID card bearing Employee Code "0399". Copies of the appointment letter dated 08.03.2005 showing that R No. 22 was working on the post of "Trainee Officer-Quality Assurance" on full-time basis with salary, the passbook showing the receipt of the salary by the respondent No. 22 during the period of his employment and the employee ID card are annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-3" collectively.
Moreover, the Medical Education and Drugs Department, had constituted a Committee for examinig the experience of the candidates who had applied for the pot ofthe Drugs Inspector pursuant to various complaints received by it. The said Committee after holding due verification had categorically held that the respondent No. 22 possessed the necessary experience (See p. 824 of the Writ Petition No. 1218/2013) The respondent No. 22 indulged in fabricating the documents inasmuch as the outward numbers of two different experience certificates submitted by him were the same.
The outward numbers of both the experience certificates are not same:
Document at p. 324 of WP No. 13920 of 2019 bears outward No. MJB/TRO/SS/005/06 whereas that at p. 326 bears MJB/O/SS/005/06 which are different from each other.
Natin Pandurang Aher-Respondent No. 19 No relevant document produced at the time of interview despite mandated in the call letter.
Respondent No. 19 due to oversight had not carried the requisite documents at the time of interview. However, the Respondent No. 19 had submitted the documents within 24 hours as directed by the MPSC. Thus, there is no force in the argument that Respondent No. 19 did not submit the documents at the time of interview. Also, it is no body's contention that this relaxation of submitting documents within 24 hours of the interview was not granted to them and granted to others. The MPSC in fact had
65 wp 1218.2013+ grante this relaxation to all candidates.
The Committee constituted by the Government observed that the experience certificate submitted by Respondent No.
19 were forged.
The Committee appointed by the Government had verified the documents by visiting the Department of Formulation and Development whereas Respondent No. 19 was working in the Department of Production. Immediately after perusal othe report, the Respondent No. 19 submitted an explanation to the Medical Education and Drugs Department with relevant documents which was again placed before the said Committee. The said Committee once again caused verification of he experience of the Respondent No. 19 and informed the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department that the same was found to be true and correct vide communcaiton dated 06.03.2012. Accordingly, the R. 19 was given an appointment order on 14.03.2012. The report relied on by the petitioner holds no good, in the light of the subsequent report submitted by the Committee. Copies of the documents obtaind under RTI regarding the subsequent verification report submitted by the Committee and the appointment order are annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-4" collectively.
Smt. Swati Sudhakar Bharde (Lokhande) - Respondent No. 16 Respondent No. 16 does not possess the requisite experience The Respondent No. 16 worked on the post of Trainee Supervisor-Production which is a full time post on the establishment of Unijules Life Science Ltd., Nagpur. The Responded No.
16 was a full time employee and was paid a full-fledged salary including allowances.
Moreover, the services of the R-16 were approved by the Department of Food and Drugs Administration. Copies of the documents in support of the experience of the respondent No. 16 and the order granting approal to her service are annexed Herewith and marked as Exhibit "PA-5" collectively.
Moreover, the Medical Education and Drug Department has constituted a Committee for examining the experience of candidates who have applied for the post of Drugs Inspector pursuant to various complaints received by it. The said committee after holding due verification has categorically held that the R-16 possessed the necessary experience (See P-825[Sr.No.16] of the Writ Petition No.1218/2013).
Monica Vinod Dhawad alias Monica Arun Mohod-Respondent No. 17 The respondent No. 17 possesses 3.8 years of experience in manufacturing and testing the details of which are as under:
Sr.
No.
Name of Company From Total period (Y/M/D) Kaplin Pharmace uticals Nov. 2004 to June 2008 3.8 years The Petitioner has worked for the period between November 2004 to June, 2005 as Assistant Production-Trainee which was a full time post receiving full-fledged salary. After completion of the training perod, the petitioner was continued as Assistant Production Chemist, which again is a full-time post with aprescribed pay-scale. The
66 wp 1218.2013+ petitioner had furnished the necessary documents in support of his experience in manufacturing as aforesaid, at the time of interview.
Moreover the Medical Education and Drugs Department has constituted a Committee for examining the experience of the candidates who had applied for the post of Drugs Inspector pursuant to various complaints received by it. The said Committee after holding due verification had categorically held that the Respondent No. 17 possessed the necessary experience (See p. 824 & 825 of the Writ Petition No. 1218/2013) Exhibit "PA-6"
collectively.
Sachin Ashok Kamble (Respondent No.39) The application of Sachin Ashok Kamble is required to be rejected by the M.P.S.C.
for the post of Drug Inspector, as such, he has violated the rule 4.1.13.2, 4.1.13.5, 4.1.13.6, 4.1.13.7 and 5.3.24 mentioned in brouchure. Mr. Kamble has not produced the experience certificate at the time of interview though it is specifically directed on interview call letter.
Mr. Sachin Ashok Kamble possesses following experience and the same was mentioned in the MPSC application as well as at the time of interview.
Sr.
No.
Name of the Company From To (As on the date of interview) Total period (Y/M/D) Biocon India Ltd., Bangalore 15.01.
14.10.2010 5 years and 10 months FRLHT, Yelahanka, Bangalore 04/08/ 29/12/2004 months (1.5 yrs) Total Experience as on date of Interview About 7 years approximate The respondent No.39 had produced the experience certificate, however, not in the prescribed format. The respondent No.39 therefore, had sought time rom the Committee of Interviews for submission of the experience certificate in the rpescribed format.
Accordingly, the respondent No.39 had submitted the experience certificate in the requisite format within a perid of 7 days on 21.10.2010, as permitted by the Committee of Interviews, through email as well as in person.
Moreover, the Medical Education and Drug Department has constituted a Committee for examining the experience of candiates who have applied for the post of Drugs Inspector pursuant to various complaints received by it. The said committee after holding due verification has categorically held that the R-39 possessed the necessary experience (See P-825 [Sr.No.16] of the Writ Petition No. 1218/2013). Copies of the experience certificate along with the email sent by the applicant is annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit"PA-7" collectively.
Vijay Vitthal Nangare-Respondent No. 18 The Respondent No. 18 not eligible due to R & D experience.
The Respondent No. 18 has furnished the necessary documents regarding his experience in manufacturing and testing of drugs at the time of interview. In advertisement No.
020/2008 dated 11/02/2008, at point No. 5.2 it
67 wp 1218.2013+ was mentioned that "Preference may be given to candiates having a postgraduate degree in subject mentioned in sub-clause 5.1.1 above or research experience in the synthesis and testing of drugs". The Medical Education and Drugs Department, had constituted a Committee for examining the experience of the candidates who had applied for the post of the Drugs Inspector pursuant to various complaints received by it. The said Committee after holding due verification had categorically held that the respondent No. 18 possessed the necessary experience. Copies ofthe documents obtained under RTI regarding the subsequent verification report submitted by the Committee and the confirmation order are annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-8"
collectively.
Phot not affixed The Respondent No. 18 has submitted duly filled application form (with affixed photograph) vide Sr. No. DR 0082778 at Asst.
Post Master office, Thane on 10/03/2008 and acknowledgement was obtained. As mentioned in point 2.4.5 of MPSC prospectus, duly filled application form (with affixed photograph) was submitted in Post Office and then only acknowledgement was obtained. Copy of this acknowledgement is annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-9" collectively.
Non Creamy Layer Certificate has not submitted Higher Income The Respondent No. 18 has submitted the Non Creamy Layer Certificate dated 08/03/2008 at the time of interview duly issued by the Sub Divisional Office (Revenue), Phaltan, Sub Dn. Phaltn, Dist. Satara (See p. 681 of the Writ Petition No. 1218/2013). Thus, there is no force in the argument that Respondent No. 18 did not submit the Non Creamy Layer Certificate.
Copy of Government Resolution (Government of Maharashtra) No. CBC10/2006/122/MVK-5 dated 20/10/2006 and No. CBC10/2004/687/MVK-5 29/10/2004 is submitted for eligibility of Non Creamy Layer. Copy of "Clarifications regarding creamy layer amongst OBCs" from Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training dated 14/10/2004 is submitted for information. As mentioned in point no. 8 of these Carifications, the creamy layer status of a candidate is determined on the basis of the status of his parens and not on the basis of his own status or income. It is further clarified that, while determining the creamy layer status of a person the status or the income of the candidate himself shall not be taken into account.
Rakesh Manohar Edalwar respondent No. 32 Pursuant to the objections raised by the Scrutiny Committee formed by the Goverment, the respondent No. 32 had preferred a representation along with the necessary documents including an experience certificate issued by the Chief Operating Officer of the Company as well as the explanation of the concerned officer who had issued the earlier expeience certificate to the Committee. The said Committee is reconsidering its decision whereas the final decision is yet to be taken. The services of the respondent No. 32 is yet
68 wp 1218.2013+ to be confirmed and is subject to the decision in the aforesaid proceedings. Copies of the documents submitted to the Committee as well as the response received under RTI stating that the final decision of the Committee is yet to be taken are annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-10" collectively.
Anjali M. Mitkar Respondent No.13 The respondent No. 13 worked as Quality Assurance Officer in Ajantha Pharma, Chikalthana MIDC/Paithan, Aurangabad. She was receiving regular salary and allowances as Quality Assurance officer and therefore, the services rendered by her as a Quality Assurance Officer in Ajantha Pharma, Chikalthana, Aurangabad need to be treated as regular service. Cipies of statement of payment from April 2004 to December, 2004 and increment lette issued by Ajantha Pharma, Chikalthana are annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit"_".
The Medical Education and Drugs Department, had constituted a Committee for examining the experience of the candidates who had applied for the post of the Drugs Inspector pursuant to various compliants received by it. The said Committee after holding due verification had categorically held that the respondent No. 13 possessed the necessary experience. The services of the respondent No. 13 is confirmed vide order dated 25.07.2019 and 13.08.2019, copies of which are annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-11" collectively.
Satish H. Chavan Respondent No. 36 The Respondent No. 36 has submitted the Non Creamy Layer Certificate dated 24.07.2009 at the time of interview duly issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dharwa, Dist. Yawatmal Thus, there is no force in the argumnt that Respondent No. 18 did not submit the Non Creamy Layer Certificate.
The services of the respondent No.36 is confirmed vide order dated 02.03.2021, copies of which are annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit "PA-12" collectively.
Explanation of respondent Nos.20, 24 and 25 alongwith chart and documents are annexed herewith and marked at EXHIBITS- "PA-13", "PA14" AND "PA-15" respectively. 35.
The Petitioners it appears are relying on the Report of the 4 Member Committee whereas the selected candidates are relying on the Report of the 4 Member Committee after re-verification as alleged. The MPSC has refuted the allegation of
69 wp 1218.2013+ the Petitioners in writ Petition No. 1218 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 13920 of 2019 that some of the candidates named in the memo of Petition were not interviewed or candidates getting less marks were selected.
36.
It would not be possible in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enter into the rigmarole of the disputed facts.
37.
The MPSC shall re-verify the entire documents of selected and appointed candidates. The Respondents have refuted the contention of the Petitioners. Upon re-verification if it is found that the candidates appointed did not possess the necessary experience or had submitted forged documents then shall take steps against them. Upon reverifying the documents and records if the Respondent / Authority arrives at conclusion that some of the candidates were not eligible to be appointed shall take appropriate steps against them. If the posts advertised under advertisements
70 wp 1218.2013+ dated 21.12.2007, 11.02.2008 and 29.07.2008 due to non joining of selected candidates are vacant or if some of the candidates appointed, upon reverification of their documents are found to be not possessing necessary qualification or eligibility then on said post the MPSC / State Government may consider the petitioners or persons from the wait list of said advertisements for said posts of course in confirmity with the eligibility, qualification and upon considering the category or reservation they had applied. Said exercise shall be done preferably within four (04) months.
38.
The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
39.
In view of disposal of the Writ Petitions, all the Civil Applications stand disposed of.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe