1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1854 OF 2010 The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bombay, Through the Secretary, Bank of India Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharshtra Through General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and another .. RESPONDENTS Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.A.G.Godhamgaonkar, Advocate holding for Mr.B.G.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd June 2010 PER COURT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 7.1.2010 allowing the Original Application No.1092 of 2009, filed by the present respondent No.2 and directing the petitioner herein to consider the form of the respondent No.2 as a candidate belonging to NT(B) category from the date of submissions of the form for preliminary examination. 2 2. It appears that pursuant to an advertisement which was issued by the petitioner for the recruitment of Police Sub Inspectors, the respondent No.2 had submitted the form. The stage of the recruitment process contemplated a preliminary examination as an initial step for short-listing the candidates and thereby the participation of the selected candidates in the preliminary examination. As per the procedure which is prescribed by the petitioner, the respective candidates, who are required to submit a form for the preliminary examination, were required to submit an identical form in order to participate in the second limb of the selection process. The respondent No.2 while submitting the form, particularly in response to the information which was sought under paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 declared himself to be claiming reservation but inadvertently omitted to indicate the category to which he belongs. There was a specific column dealing with the category and each of the candidate was required to indicate if he or she belongs either to S.C., S.T., D.T.(A), N.T.(B) etc. The said column i.e. column 10.1 was not indicated by the respondent No.2 but in response to the information at 10.2 the respondent No.2 claimed reservation. The respondent No.2, it appears was treated as an open category candidate and accordingly participated in the preliminary examination. The respondent No.2 was declared successful and as per the procedure was required to submit another form which was identical to the first form. In this form in response to the information sought at columns 10.1 and 10.2, the respondent No.2 indicated that he belongs to NT(B) category and that he claimed reservation. The respondent No.2, it 3 appears secured 302 marks while the cut off limit for the candidates belonging to open category was more than the marks obtained by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 thereafter filed the original application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the order which is impugned in the present petition allowed the original application. 3. Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the conditions which are prescribed for the selection process. One of the conditions contemplated that once the form was filled, no alterations would be permitted and no candidate would be permitted to change the reservation, if claimed by him. It is further stated that if the form was incomplete in any respect, the same would not be accepted. Mr.Kulkarni, therefore, states that the Tribunal by allowing the original application has virtually vested the said conditions of recruitment and has permitted the alteration in the reservation since the respondent was treated as a candidate belonging to general category. It is also urged before us that since the respondent No.2 realised that he could not secure employment on the strength of the marks obtained by him, as a general candidate, the respondent No.2 has approached the Tribunal claiming reservation. It is also stated that the respondent No.2 ought to have approached the Tribunal much early, if the mistake was a genuine and a bona fide mistake. Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has urged before us that there is no perversity in the reasoning of the Tribunal and this is apparent in the light of the fact that identical forms were 4 required to be filled in by the candidates. It is also urged before us that the order of the Tribunal is not erroneous order as the reservation or the caste status of a candidate was not material for consideration at the time of the preliminary examination. 4. It is true that the respondent No.2 had not correctly filled the form for the preliminary examination. Though the respondent No.2 claimed to be belonging to reserved category, the respondent No.2 omitted in not stating the category to which he belongs. In that light, the respondent No. 2 was treated by the petitioner as a candidate belonging to open category. We may at this juncture point out that the preliminary examination was an examination which was conducted for short-listing the candidates. No specific reservation of seats was provided to candidates claiming reservation. Therefore, nothing depended upon whether a candidate claimed to be belonging to any reserved category or not. The respondent no.2, undisputedly, was declared successful in the preliminary examination and accordingly had filled in the form for the second limb of the recruitment process, i.e. physical test and the interview to be conducted by the petitioner. This form was correctly filled by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has claimed reservation and has also indicated category to which he belongs. The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded on the footing that since multiple forms were required to be filled in by the candidates, the omission on the part of the respondent No. 2 to indicate the category to which he belongs while filling in the form for 5 the preliminary examination, was not material. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 was entitled to be treated as a candidate belonging to NT (B) category. Mr.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further urged before us that the order of the Tribunal is likely to be adversely affect the interest of the other selected candidates. We do not agree with this submission. Though the recruitment process was concluded, the list of the selected candidates has not been displayed. Even otherwise whose name figured in the select list has no legally enforceable right. Since the process of selection, particularly relating to the appointment of the selected candidates is at the threshold, no candidate is likely to be prejudicially affected. Similarly, the order of the Tribunal that the respondent No.2 be treated as a candidate belonging to NT (B) category right from the inception of the selection process also would not prejudicially affect any other candidate as it neither turned on the question as to whether the candidate claimed reservation or not. 5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the order of the Tribunal and have also examined the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Upon such examination, we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Tribunal. Writ of certiorari has been invoked by the petitioner for quashing the said order. There is no any jurisdictional error nor any perversity in the reasoning of the Tribunal. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, no case for interference 6 is made out and this Writ Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. 6. At this stage, Mr.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for extension of the interim relief which has been granted by this Court while issuing notice. We, therefore, continue the interim relief granted by this Court for a period of four weeks from today. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1854.10wp)