Illegal Diversion of Reserved Vacancy & Denial of Appointment
Judgment dated 30.11.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.15028 of 2023 of Shilpa Maruti Sonawane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.
The Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 21st September 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), rejecting her claim for appointment as a Lecturer in English. A total of 58 candidates had approached the Tribunal through a batch of Applications seeking directions upon the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue orders of appointment and treat the Petitioners as employees of Respondent No.1 from the date of their selection. While Original Applications of several candidates were allowed by the Tribunal resulting in their appointment(s), the Writ Petitioner was denied relief by the Tribunal. Hence this Petition.
On 6th July 2013, Respondent No. 3 – Maharashtra Public Service Commission (“MPSC”), issued an advertisement inviting applications for 92 posts of Lecturer, Group A, in English, Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics. The Petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Female) category, applied for the post of Lecturer in English. After she cleared the written examination and the interview, Respondent No. 3 published its recommendation list on 8th July 2014. Out of the 92 posts, 87 candidates were recommended for the posts in question, as five posts earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category could not be filled up for want of eligible candidates. Out of the 11 posts reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates,
The Petitioner’s name appeared at sr. no. 74 in the overall list, with the category-wise recommendation recorded as “SC Female-2”
In August 2014, the Petitioner’s documents were verified by the Higher and Technical Education Department. Thereafter, the State issued Government Resolutions on 16th July, 2015, 31st March, 2016 and 7th September, 2017, appointing 20, 2 and 1 candidate(s) respectively thus appointing 23 candidates. The Petitioner was, however, not appointed. Hence, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an Original Application, which was subsequently transferred from the Nagpur Bench to the Mumbai Bench. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal, while expressing sympathy towards the plight of the Applicants, including the present Petitioner, had refrained from passing any direction on the prayer made in the original Application by observing that the State would be expected to take an appropriate policy decision in the matter for creation of a supernumerary post, so as to accommodate the Applicants. There were 39 original Applicants, who had approached the Tribunal, but the Petitioner is the one who has approached this Court by filing the present Petition assailing the decision of the Tribunal.
On the material before us, we are satisfied that the Petitioner was wrongly excluded despite being second in the Scheduled Caste female category. The adjustment of open category Scheduled Caste candidate against the reserved Scheduled Caste Female candidate is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The Petitioner has been denied appointment for more than 11 years. She cannot be penalized for the errors committed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we modify the impugned order dated 21st September, 2023 passed by the Tribunal and direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue an appointment order to the Petitioner appointing her to the post of English Lecturer anywhere in the State of Maharashtra, wherever vacancy is available.
