By consent of parties, the aforesaid writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The State Government and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board have made common arguments in all the five matters including in some of the civil applications. The petitioners also have made common arguments insofar as the submissions of law as well as identical facts are concerned. Some of the employees who were impleaded to the various petitions who are likely to be affected by this order have also advanced separate arguments partly adopting the submissions made by the State Government as well as by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and partly by pointing out their individual facts which would be ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 49 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc summarized in the later part of this judgment.

The relevant facts and submissions in the petition in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 :-

kvm 50 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

4. On 21st January, 2009, the MPCB published an advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications for various posts including the post of Field Officer. Insofar as the post of Field Officers are concerned, the said advertisement was published for inviting applications for filling up 34 posts. By a letter dated 27 th January, 2009, the petitioner raised objection pointing out various lacunae including that the State Government had not given wide publication of advertisement and thus other duly qualified persons could not apply in response to the said advertisement. The petitioner called upon the MPCB to furnish various particulars.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the MPCB however suddenly published a list of candidates for the post of Field Officer including the waiting list. The said list provided the names of 105 candidates who were selected and further provided the names of 39 candidates who were shown in the waiting list. The said letter also provided the educational qualification of each of those candidates, their caste and also the marks obtained by them.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that though the advertisement was published by the MPCB in the month of January 2009, the actual selection was carried out after 10 months i.e. in the month of October 2009. The selection list was published on 6 th November, 2009. The Government was formed in the State of Maharashtra and the Chief Minister had taken his oath on 7 th November,2009. It is the case of the petitioner that on 9 th ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 51 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc November,2009 i.e. on Monday about 80% candidates who were selected by the MPCB for the post of Field Officer had joined the service. Within one day of the publication of the selection list, the call letters were alleged to have been received by the selected candidates and within one day they were all ready for the appointment and actually joined for the post.

7. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 22nd March,2010 for various reliefs. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the advertisement issued by the MPCB. The objections raised by the petitioner on 27 th January,2009, the selection list published by the MPCB and various Government resolutions including the resolutions dated 15th September 2006, 19th October 2007, various annexures to the petition, averments in the affidavits filed by the respondents and also tendered a compilation of the documents obtained by the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act , i.e. ' Second Copy of Mark Memo of Field Officer Interview dated 22/10/2009 to 25/10/2009', list of selected candidates annexed at pages 79 to 89 etc.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions for consideration of this court :-

The applications were invited and such applicants were directed to submit their applications in the post box kept for submission of the applications. No acknowledgement of the receipt of the applications were furnished. The MPCB did not call the persons who had applied for the said post in response to the advertisement issued by MPCB.

published through the Office of the Employment Exchange nor the advertisement was published on the website of the Government of Maharashtra and of Employment Exchange. The seniority list from the Office of the Employment Exchange was not called though was mandatory as per the policy decision taken by the State of Maharashtra in Government resolution dated 19th October,2007.

(c) The advertisement was published by the MPCB during the Code of Conduct i.e. during the election of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and after receipt of applications i.e. after 10 months, ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 53 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc the candidates were called for interview. The petitioner was informed under the Right to Information Act that the oral permission was sought by the MPCB from the Office of the Election Commission which was granted.

(d) As per the Government policy described in Government resolution dated 15th September, 2006, which was framed in lieu of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the advertisement should have provided the name, the authority having its official address and phone number and e-mail ID so as to have impartial selection process. The procedure followed by the MPCB was in violation of and contrary to the Government policy described in Government resolution dated 15th September,2006.

examination, no written examinations were held by the MPCB though the same was mandatory as per the said Government resolution. Though the selection process ought to have been conducted by providing written test, oral test was taken. Though the ratio of written and oral test ought to have been given separately and though the ratio of marks or written test ought to have given higher then the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 54 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc oral test, no such procedure was followed by the MPCB while selecting large number of candidates. The procedure for recruitment ought to have specifically provided in the advertisement in terms of the government resolution which was not at all adhered to by the MPCB.

(f) The selection committee was not constituted in terms of the government guidelines as per the government resolution dated 10th December, 2004 and 19th October, 2007. One woman candidate ought to have appointed in the selection committee which norms were not followed by the MPCB.

(g) Though as per the advertisement, the qualification provides of any degree in engineering or post graduate in environment or equivalent qualification was provided for appointing the Field Officer while selecting the candidates, one candidate Mr.Karandkar Surendra Gajanan holding the Bachelor of Technology degree which was not equivalent to the qualified degree or post graduate in environment was selected.

(h) Learned counsel placed reliance on the order dated 9th January,2009 passed by the Division Bench of this court in case The Mumbai Medwaste Action Group vs. Union of India and ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 55 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc others in Public Interest Litigation No.32 of 2006 along with Public Interest Litigation No.41 of 2006 directing that the MPCB shall ensure that the proposal for appropriate staff be submitted to the Government by 12th January,2009 and the Government shall take decision thereon before the next date of the hearing and further directing to take steps to ensure that for the three remaining divisions, appropriate steps to be taken before that date for collection and disposal of waste, the MPCB has appointed a large number of candidates contrary to the said order dated 9th January, 2009.

(i) The MPCB has selected over-age candidates. The advertisement has provided the upper limit of 35 years. The MPCB however has appointed the candidates of 41 years and above on the pretext that those employees were already in service of MPCB or the State Government. The employees in the service of MPCB or the Government ought to have been considered as a regular service and the service of contract of service or daily wages. The candidates were given appointment without following the Government resolution dated 5th November, 2009 and without asking the candidates to submit caste validity certificate, when they were appointed on the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 56 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc reserve post. The candidates those who were having more than two children were appointed on the selection process contrary to the policy decision taken by the State Government.

(j) The MPCB did not follow the ratio of 33% reservation of the remaining category though the said reservation was given by the Government resolution for the woman, Department of State including the MPCB. The candidates at serial nos. 56 to 62 and 14 to 16 who are some of the respondents in this petition have been selected though they were not in the list of selection or waiting list.

(k) The advertisement did not provide the reservation on the post under the category of Project Affected Person (PAP), handicapped candidates and freedom fighters and all other reservation which deprive such candidates to apply for such post.

(l) The MPCB has not followed the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board Employment Recruitment Rules, 1996 while selecting large number of candidates whose appointments are subject matter of this petition. Reliance is placed on the definition of 'test' under Rule 2(f) thereof ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 57 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc and 7. Rule 7(b) provides that unless already in service of Board/Government, the candidate should not be more than 35 years of age. No roaster was prepared by the MPCB since the year 2000.

(m) Our attention is invited to the minutes of the meeting prepared by MPCB. It is submitted that according to those minutes of the meeting, various candidates were alleged to have been interviewed between 22nd October, 2009 to 25th October,2009. On 22nd October, 2009 itself, the selection committee had alleged to have interviewed 257 candidates. The same method was adopted for remaining four days. The minutes of the meeting would show that the selection committee itself had made appointment of additional 114 posts without taking prior permission from the Government. The Field Officer had informed that there were additional posts available for appointment i.e. earlier 30 posts and additional 84 which were to be filled in view of the advertisement published on 21st January, 2009. No such information was provided in the advertisement.

(n) The reservation provided in the meeting for Scheduled Cast, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 58 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc Classes exceeding 52% is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The MPCB illegally increased the reservation from 52% recorded in the minutes of the meeting upto 65%. Though woman candidates were available, they were not appointed. The entire selection was conducted during the course of Code of Conduct based on oral permission alleged to have been obtained from the State Election Commission. Till today, no permission in writing is produced before this Court.

(o) A copy of the record of the selection process furnished to the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act shows that all the members of the selection committee had given similar marks to almost all the candidates under different categories. One Mr.Tuljapurkar Dnyaneshwar Mishram though is shown as absent by the chair person of the committee, other four persons have given him 74 marks and the said candidate is appointed. The candidates at serial nos. 168 to 170 are marked as absent by the chairman of the selection committee. The other four members of the selection committee however have given them marks. The candidate at serial no.81 was initially shown having given marks but ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 59 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc was subsequently shown as absent. The marks of Mayuresh Ghorpade though were 73 which were identical to the marks allotted to Indrajit Deshmukh and Avinash Kadale and though Mayuresh Ghorpade who was senior in age ought to have been appointed, he was not appointed by the MPCB. Borkar and Mahajan were in the selection list, but the MPCB has not appointed the said candidates.

(p) Vastre and Tambe were not in the selection list, but they were appointed. Vishal Dixit who was at serial no.78 had secured 62 marks and was eligible for appointment from OBC category. His marks were subsequently reduced so as to knock out his name from the list of selected candidates. The marks in respect of other candidates in the said copy of the mark memo given by the selection committee are over written. One of the page in the said compilation is missing.

(q) It is submitted that the MPCB while recruiting the large number of candidates in the post of Field Officer have committed a fraud and has committed a systematic and well planned fraud while recruiting the large number of Field Officers and has committed gross violation of Government resolution and also the principles of law laid down ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:30 ::: kvm 60 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc by the Supreme Court and this court. Learned counsel invited our attention to the observations made by this court in various orders against MPCB and State Government and more particularly in the order dated 12th July, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of this court and thereby making all the appointments made by the MPCB which are subject matter of this petition subject to the outcome of these petitions.

(r) Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to the various pages of the 'Mark Memo of Field Officer' to show that the interviews were alleged to have been conducted during the period between 22nd October, 2009 to 25th October, 2009 during the time between 9 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. with different intervals and would submit that the 254 candidates had alleged to have been interviewed on the same day which would be impossible to conduct between 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. i.e. between 9.00 a.m., 11.00 a.m., 12 noon and 4 p.m. He submits that the entire record is manipulated by the MPCB and shows a fraudulent method adopted by the MPCB to recruit a large number of persons thereby depriving the other candidates who were eligible for such appointment and have more qualified and suitable.

pre-determined about the number of candidates and the names of the candidates who only would be selected in deprivation of the other eligible candidates who were entitled to be appointed.

fraudulently committed by the MPCB to select the large number of candidates in this fashion deserves to be set aside. He submits that though the petitioner in this case had not applied to any post in response to any advertisement published by the MPCB, the petitioner is still entitled to challenge the selection procedure. If the MPCB would have issued the correct advertisement in accordance with law and would have provided all the details of the post that would be filled up including the numbers thereof, the petitioner also could have applied to the said post.

(u) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments in support of this submission:-

Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and others, (2006) 2 SCC 482 (Paragraphs 21 and 24)

( l) Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others AIR 1978 SC 851 (Paragraph 8) Some of the relevant facts and submissions in Writ Petition No.7841 of 2009 :-

kvm 64 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

10. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been issued a certificate by the District Rehabilitation Officer of Aurangabad on 2 nd April, 2005 certifying that he came from the family of Project Affected Persons (PAP). The name of the petitioner had been registered in the Office of District Collector, Aurangabad. It is the case of the petitioner that he is eligible and entitled to be appointed on the post of Field Officer having fulfilled with all the eligibility criteria as per advertisement dated 21st January,2009. The petitioner has passed Bachelor of Engineering Course in Chemical Subject.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the advertisement issued by the MPCB, it was provided that out of 34 posts which was required to be filled on the post of Field Officer, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste, 5 posts for Scheduled Tribe, 1 post for NT and 27 posts reserved for open category candidates. No post was however reserved for the project affected persons though required to be reserved as per the Government policy and resolutions. The petitioner submitted his application for the post of Field Officer.

The petitioner received a call letter from the respondent no.2 issued on 12th October,2009 calling upon him to attend the interview to be held on 24th October,2009 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner appeared before the selection committee for interview.

12. It is submitted that by a Government resolution dated 21 st January, 1980, 5% posts are reserved for project affected persons and ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 65 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc persons depending upon such family out of total posts to be filled in all the Government Departments, Zilla Parishads, Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils etc. a priority has to be given to such appointments. He submits that by another Government resolution dated 3rd January 1997, it was further declared that for appointment in Class III and Class IV posts, there should be 5% reservation out of total posts advertised for the persons from project affected persons. He also placed reliance on various other resolutions in support of this submission. He submits that the post of Field Officer is Class III category post.

13. It is submitted that though the advertisement was issued in respect of all the 34 posts of Field Officer, MPCB selected 105 candidates and kept 39 persons in the waiting list. Though the MPCB has maintained the reservation quota, SC, ST, NT, VJA, OBC categories etc. are maintained but there was not a single selection made from the category of project affected persons. He submitted that even if the advertisement was in respect of 34 posts, as per the reservation criteria of 5%, atleast two posts should have been kept to be filed in from project affected persons out of 5 persons which has not been maintained by the MPCB thereby violating various Government resolutions and guidelines. The petitioner was thus seriously affected and was deprived of legitimate appointment to the post of Field Officer.

14. It is submitted that though the name of the petitioner was registered with the office of the Collector, Aurangabad and he had ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 66 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc secured a degree in Engineering in Chemical subject which was an eligibility criteria, which was fulfilled by the petitioner, the petitioner was illegally not appointed by the MPCB.

15. It is submitted that the respondent nos. 3 to 8 are illegally appointed without following due procedure of law by MPCB in project affected persons category quota contrary to the conditions prescribed in Government resolution dated 18th August,2008 vide appointment order dated 6th October,2009. He submits that the respondent no.3 has been appointed on the post of Field Officer after publishing the advertisement on the basis of recommendation made by the District Collector, Jalgaon in respect of respondent no.3 subject to the advertisement published in the newspaper 'Daily Loksatta'. Another candidate Ravindra Govind Kshirsagar i.e. respondent no.4 was not having a requisite qualification, i.e. the said candidate having qualification of Bachelor of Technology (sugar) was appointed. The certificate of respondent no.6 Pankaj Bawane which was though transferred from his brother Makarand Bawane on 5 th September,2009 i.e. after publishing the advertisement, he was appointed illegally to one of the post of Field Officer.

16. It is submitted that the respondent no.7 was also appointed on the post of Field Officer who was not having a certificate of the project affected persons at the time of advertisement or at the time of selection. The project affected persons certificate was issued to the said candidate only on the date of the appointment i.e. 6 th October,2009. In support of this submission, learned counsel invited ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 67 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc my attention to various documents annexed to the petition.

17. It is submitted that the respondent nos. 4 to 8 are appointed on the post of Field Officers though their names were not recommended by the District Collector from the seniority list maintained by the Collector's Office. He submits that the Government resolution dated 18th August,2008 is ex-facie violated by the MPCB while making the appointment of the respondent nos. 4 to 8 and thus the said appointments are totally illegal. The petitioner has been deprived of the appointment to the said post and thus the appointments of respondent nos. 4 to 8 shall be quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall be appointed to one of the said post.

18. Insofar as other alleged illegalities pointed out by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7841 of 2009 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner adopts the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the Government resolution dated 18th August, 2008 and would submit that contrary to the said resolution, no post for project affected persons came to be advertised. The MPCB however illegally appointed six persons in the category of project affected persons who were not eligible nor were falling under the said category. He also placed reliance upon the order of the State Government dated 6th October,2009 annexed at page 41A-1 and also various paragraphs from the affidavit in reply of the respondent no.3 and also of the State Government and ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 68 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc MPCB. He submits that no seniority list was called by the MPCB of the project affected persons before making any appointment. The respondent no.3 has appointed directly on the instructions of the State Government illegally i.e. pursuant to the letter dated 24 th July, 2009. He also pointed out that the father of the respondent no.7 was issued project affected persons' certificate on 6th October,2009. The name of the respondent no.7 was included in the project affected persons category. On 6th October,2009 however the respondent no.7 was appointed under project affected persons category illegally. He invited our attention to the letter dated 6th October, 2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel that Ravindra Kshirsagar was not even qualified however was appointed in the category of project affected persons.

20. Insofar as respondent no.6 is concerned, it is submitted that certificate of transfer in the name of respondent no.6 was from his brother's name only on 5th February, 2009. The respondent no.6 however was illegally appointed to the post in the category of project affected persons. He submits hat the number of persons not having certificate of project affected persons on the date of advertisement or on the date of selection are still appointed. He submits that the JRF post occupied by one of the candidate was not a sanctioned post. However such candidate was illegally appointed as project affected persons candidate. He placed reliance on the judgment reported in case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2009(4) MLJ 961 and in particular paragraph 40.

kvm 69 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc Facts and submissions in Writ Petition No.7577 of 2009 :-

21. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for setting aside the selection list, including the waiting list for the post of Field Officers and also prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 6th November, 2009 passed by MPCB appointing the candidates for the post of Field Officers and further seeks writ of mandamus praying for an order and direction against the MPCB to appoint the petitioner on the post of the Field Officers and for other reliefs.

22. The petitioner has completed his B.Sc. In the year 1991 and has completed M.Sc. in Environment Science in the year 1993. The petitioner has also submitted the synopsis for PhD. in Environment Science and is working as a Junior Scientific Officer with the MPCB, regional office at Aurangabad. The petitioner was promoted to the said post of Junior Scientific Officer by an order dated 15th June, 2005. Insofar as the advertisement issued by the MPCB on 21st January, 2009, the petitioner applied for one of the post of the Field Officer. The petitioner participated in the selection procedure, however, his name was not found in the selection list. By an order dated 6th November, 2009, the MPCB appointed various candidates.

23. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidates who were at serial nos.56 to 62, are appointed by the MPCB, their names were not appearing in the selection list and though they had not participated in the selection process, they are ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 70 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc illegally appointed by MPCB. He submits that the appointment order issued in respect of the female candidates appearing at serial nos.14 to 16 are also not shown in the selection list. The candidates at serial no.89 in the appointment list is not qualified to the post of the Field Officer as per applicable recruitment rules in view of the fact that the said candidate is possessing the qualification B.Tech. in Agriculture.

24. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Government of Maharashtra had issued an order dated 20th August, 2009 thereby granting a sanction to 84 posts of Field Officers. The MPCB however, has without issuing a fresh advertisements for the said 84 posts has recruited various candidates on such posts also pursuant to the advertisement which was issued on 20th January, 2009. The entire selection process conducted by MPCB was totally illegal and contrary to the procedure prescribed by various Government resolutions. The petitioner was fully qualified and experienced person and was fully eligible to one of the post of Field Officers. The petitioner did not fall under PAP category. The respondent nos.9 to 15 are however, appointed by the MPCB whose names were not in the selection list and had not participated in the selection process. According to the affidavit filed by MPCB, the respondent nos.9 to 15 belonged to Scheduled Tribe category. It is submitted that these appointments are arbitrarily made by the MPCB. It is submitted that the additional posts could not have been sanctioned by the Government after issuance of the advertisement which action was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case reported in (2005) 4 SRJ 290 and more particularly paragraph 13. Learned counsel adopted the submissions ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 71 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 insofar as the other submissions are concerned.

Facts and submissions in Writ Petition No.7730 of 2009 :-

25. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the selection list, including the waiting list for the posts of the Field Officers carried out by the MPCB and for other reliefs. The petitioners have secured Engineering Degree and are working in different places. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the MPCB on 21st January, 2009, the petitioners have made the applications to the MPCB for their appointment for the post of Field Officers. The petitioners had received the call letter dated 12th October, 2009 and were directed to remain present for oral interview on 24th October, 2009 and 25th October, 2009.

26. The Interview Committee of the MPCB changed the process of the oral interview as per the scheduled date on 22 nd October, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. and conducted the interviews as per the list published on internet. On 22nd October, 2009, the Interview Committee has alleged to have interviewed 257 candidates. Between 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. they had alleged to have allegedly completed oral interview of 126 candidates and between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. they have conducted over all interview of 100 candidates and between 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., they had alleged to have conducted the interview of 31 candidates. The respondent nos.2 and 3 had alleged to have completed ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 72 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc oral interview on 25th October, 2009 and lateron they had displayed the selection list on internet on 30th October, 2009 for the post of Field Officers.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the various annexures to the writ petition and also to the affidavits filed by some of the respondents and would submit that though the candidates who were eligible to apply for the said posts ought to have been the resident of Maharashtra State, the candidates at serial nos.14 and 15 on the waiting list were from Sikkim, Manipal University and have been selected. The candidates, who have completed B.Tech. (Agriculture) has been also selected at serial no.98. The candidates holding such B.Tech. (Agriculture) degree were not at all eligible for the post of the Field Officers, however were selected by the MPCB.

28. It is submitted that the candidates at serial nos.36, 50 and 74 were from open category and had crossed the age of 35 years and were thus not eligible, however, they had been selected for the post of the Field Officers. The MPCB ought to have conducted the written test which were not conducted. The entire procedure has been completed hurriedly without following the procedure of law. Most of the candidates appointed by the MPCB are the relatives of the employees of Board.

29. It is submitted that it was predetermined on the part of the MPCB to select these candidates, who are selected by the MPCB in violation of the Government resolutions and the directions issued by ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 73 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc the Central Pollution Board. The petitioners had participated in the selection procedure. No corrigendum was issued by the MPCB in the newspapers for increasing the posts. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Veena Varma & Anr. (2009) AIR SCW, 4685 and in particular paragraphs 21 and 26.

30. In support of his submission that the MPCB was required to conduct the written test, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Kisan Sukhdeo Lokhande vs. Collector, Akola (2004) 3 Mh.L.J. 742 and in particular paragraphs 19 and 20. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Smt.K. Lakshmi vs. State of Kerala, (2012) AIR SCW 1825, and in particular paragraphs 15 and 18 in support of his submission that the vacancies occurring after issuance of the advertisement cannot be filled up.

31. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as per the Government resolution dated 30th March, 2009, the handicapped person is not entitled to the post of Field Officers, whereas the candidates at serial nos.8 and 76 were appointed to the post of the Field Officers though the candidates were handicapped. The candidates at serial nos.14 and 15 whose names were not mentioned neither in the selection list nor in the waiting list, are appointed directly by the MPCB. The MPCB has also acted contrary to the Government resolution dated 27th June, 2008 directing all the departments in respect of the procedure required to be followed for filling up of the posts in ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 74 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc "C" category. Learned counsel for the petitioners adopted the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010.

Facts and submissions in Writ Petition No.7639 of 2009 :-

32. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus and for direction to the MPCB to undertake a fresh selection process pursuant to the advertisement date 23rd January, 2009 for the posts of the Field Officers, and also prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the selection list dated 28th October, 2009 prepared by the MPCB.

The petitioners are the post graduates from the faculty of Environment Science and were possessing the requisite qualifications for the appointment for the posts of Field Officers. In response to the advertisement dated 21st January, 2009, issued by the MPCB, the petitioner applied for the post of Field Officers. The petitioners received the call letters from the MPCB and were called for the purpose of interview. About 840 candidates were called for interview as against 34 post advertised by the MPCB.

33. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the selection list prepared by the MPCB would indicate that the candidates at serial nos.1, 3, 25, 31, 41, 42, 52 and 55 were though possessing the qualification of M.E.M., which was not to be treated as equivalent since the said faculty was the Commerce faculty and was not the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 75 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc degree either in Engineering or Environment Science as prescribed in the advertisement dated 21st January, 2009, those candidates were appointed by the MPCB contrary to and in violation of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement.

34. It is submitted that the candidates at serial nos.68 and 76 though were possessing the qualification of post graduate diploma in Environment Science, only those candidates were also appointed in contravention of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement.

35. It is submitted that the candidate at serial no.13 viz. Hemant Vasant Kulkarni, whose name was appearing in the waiting list, who even did not apply pursuant to the advertisement nor his name was appearing in the selection list, who were called for the interview, the said candidate was appointed as one of the Field Officer. It is submitted that the candidates whose names are at serial nos.36, 50, 74 and 99 had over aged i.e. had crossed the age of 35 years but were still appointed to the post of the Field Officers. The MPCB while preparing the selection list did not implement the criteria for providing reservation and acted contrary to the scheme of reservation.

36. It is submitted that no concession was provided to appoint the existing staff working in some other department. The MPCB has violated these norms also. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Swapna and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 154 and in particular paragraph 10 in support of the submission ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 76 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc that there cannot be appointment beyond the number of vacancy advertised and also to buttress the contention that the norms of the selection cannot be altered after the commencement of the selection process. He adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 insofar as the other issues involved in the petition are concerned.

37. Mr.Srihari Aney, learned senior counsel with Mr.Ajay Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the MPCB on the other hand submits that insofar as Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 is concerned, the petitioner had admittedly not participated in the selection process. The petitioner has also not prayed for his appointment to the post of Field Officer. The petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the candidates who were selected by the MPCB which according to the petitioner were illegal. He submits that if the illegalities are of such nature that it cannot be cured individually, only in that event, the whole selection process can be set aside and not otherwise. The petitioner has no locus to file this petition in his individual capacity.

It is submitted that none of the writ petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation. The action initiated by the petitioner in this case is not action in rem but is in personam and thus unless the petitioner is individually aggrieved by the acts of the MPCB and prays for setting aside the selection of the particular candidates which is illegal according to the petitioner and in whose place the petitioner deserves to be appointed, no relief can be granted by this court in this petition. This court is not hearing any public interest ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 77 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc litigation.

38. It is submitted that since the appointment of none of the candidates is challenged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010, such writ petition is a futile writ petition and cannot be entertained by this Court.

39. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to various grounds raised in the Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 and more particularly grounds (l), (n), (m) and (p) and would submit that each of the grounds raised in the writ petition are totally vague and without particulars. He submits that no woman candidate has filed any writ petition challenging the alleged irregularities or illegalities committed by the MPCB in conducting the selection procedure and making appointments of various candidates to the post of the Field Officer. He submits that only 60 candidates who were eligible to the post of Field Officer have been appointed by the MPCB. He submits that since the pleadings of the petitioners in each case are totally vague, the MPCB was not required and expected to give a detail explanation to such vague pleadings. The MPCB is not expected to answer any vague plea.

40. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to various averments made in the affidavit filed by the MPCB. He submits that the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra had sanctioned 31 posts on the establishment of the respondent for effective implementation of the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 78 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc Handling) Rules, 1998 in compliance with the order passed by this court in the public interest litigation bearing Writ Petition Nos.32 of 2006 and 41 of 2006 respectively. He submits that this court had directed the MPCB in those two public interest litigation to fill up those posts to cope up with the increase workload of the Board due to entrustment of the implementation of the said rules. The MPCB had accordingly issued an advertisement in various newspaper for filling up the post on the establishment of the board including 34 posts of Field Officers. He submits that out of 34 posts, 24 posts of Field Officer were sanctioned by the State Government in compliance with the order dated 9th January,2009 passed by this court in Writ Petition Nos. 32 of 2006 and 41 of 2006. He submits that the remaining 10 vacancies had arisen from the existing sanctioned posts of the Field Officer prior to the date of the said order dated 9 th January,2009 passed by this court in the aforesaid two writ petitions. He invited our attention to the aforesaid order dated 9th January,2009 passed by this Court.

41. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that MPCB had received 1147 applications from various candidates from throughout the Maharashtra in response to the said advertisement dated 21st January,2009. The MPCB had appointed the selection committee consisting of Deputy Secretary, Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra, Senior Most Officer of the Board of the respective Branches, Social Welfare Officer, Senior Administrative Officer as the Member Secretary of the said selection committee under the Chairmanship of the Member Secretary of the MPCB vide Office order ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 79 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc dated 1st January, 2008. He submits that the said selection committee had conducted oral interviews at the office of the MPCB during the period between 22nd October,2009 to 25th October,2009 as per Maharashtra Pollution Control Board Employees Recruitment Regulation 1996. He submits that under Rule 2(f) of those Recruitment Rules, the expression 'Test' is defined as oral test/interview prescribed by the Board.

42. It is submitted that out of 843 deserving candidates called for interview, 592 candidates appeared for the interview. The selection committee had decided the criteria for giving the marks for various subjects as such as (a) knowledge and experience = 30 marks, (b) qualification and academic performance = 30 marks, (c) personality and presentation = 30 marks and (d) general awareness = 10 marks. He submits that in the meantime the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra sanctioned 517 new posts on the establishment of the board which included 84 new post of Field Officers created on the establishment of the board. He submits that by an order dated 18th October,2003 passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Resource Policy vs. Union of India and others , the Supreme Court issued various directions to be complied with by the State Pollution Control Board and various other authorities in time bound manner.

43. It is submitted that the MPCB had appointed M/s.Crisil Advisory Services to make suggestions regarding the infrastructure and make recommendations regarding the additional manpower for ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 80 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc implementation of the various environmental laws. He submits that the MPCB considered the said report submitted by M/s.Crisil Advisory Services in the meetings held on 25 th February, 2009 and 12th March,2009 and resolved that there was an urgent need of additional manpower on the establishment of the MPCB more than double the existing strength. It was resolved that atleast 620 posts should be sanctioned immediately. The MPCB had accordingly submitted a proposal to the Government of Maharashtra, Environment Department for necessary approval. The State Government however sanctioned 517 posts including 84 posts of Field Officers. The MPCB therefore considered to fill up 84 newly sanctioned posts of Field Officers along with 34 posts which were advertised earlier by the respondent board in view of the fact that sufficient number of eligible candidates were available for the interviews and accordingly recommended 113 candidates for appointment as against 34 posts which were advertised.

44. It is submitted that no prejudice of any nature whatsoever was caused to any of the petitioners if more candidates were appointed to the post of Field Officers than the number of posts advertised by MPCB. He submits that out of 117 posts, 84 candidates were appointed on the sanctioned posts whereas 24 candidates were appointed on sanctioned post in compliance with the order passed by this court in two public interest litigations. 9 candidates were appointed in view of the vacancies arisen in the meanwhile. The Government permitted the MPCB to fill up all the posts in view of the fact that the large number of candidates had applied for the said 34 posts and were available for filling up the additional posts. He submits ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 81 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc that the appointment of additional candidates was in these circumstances and such action on the part of the MPCB was not unlawful.

45. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the MPCB had applied for necessary permission to the Election Commission to conduct the interviews in view of the fact that the elections were announced during the period when the applications were received and scrutinized by the MPCB and the Code of Conduct had made applicable throughout Maharashtra due to such Assembly Election. The Election Commissioner had granted an oral approval to the MPCB to conduct the interviews of the candidates called for the interviews. He submits that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in each of these petitions that the approval from the Election Commissioner was not obtained before conducting interviews was thus factually incorrect.

46. Learned senior counsel for the MPCB invited our attention to the terms and conditions provided in the advertisement issued by MPCB and would submit that under those terms and conditions, the MPCB was empowered to relax the conditions in case of reserved category. Whatever number of posts were mentioned in the advertisement, the backlog was capable of being changed. The number of posts could be changed after advertisement was issued and also the reservation.

47. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the name ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 82 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc of the Department was not mentioned in the advertisement for the reason that no candidate should approach the department which had issued such advertisement with a view to see that there was transparency in the selection procedure in making appointment of various candidates to various posts. He submits that merely because the name of the particular department which issued the advertisement was not mentioned, the same would not affect the candidates who proposed to apply for such posts in any manner whatsoever. All other details were already given in the advertisement. He submits that the petitioner has not challenged the virus of the Recruitment Rules, 1996 which are followed by the MPCB while conducting the selection process while making various appointments pursuant to the said advertisement. Those rules are statutory in nature and are binding on the MPCB as well as on the parties.

48. Insofar as 30% reservation for women quota is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the said 30% reservation was considered by the MPCB and under that quota 20 women Field Officers were selected who had already joined their duties as Field Officers in the MPCB. Some of the Field Officers who had not joined the duties and some of them had resigned after joining the service with the board, the candidates had been placed in their places as per the seniority list from the waiting list.

49. It is submitted that the MPCB had initially prepared a list of 105 candidates and had placed the said merit list on the website of the board. Some of the Scheduled Tribe candidates however noticed ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 83 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc that they had submitted the documentary evidence about their caste and were already interviewed and their revised merits lists as per their marks were placed on the website of the board. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that on 5th November,2009 the MPCB had issued final selection list which is admittedly not challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. The said list was published on the website on 29th October,2009.

50. Insofar as appointment of Mr.Pantavane who was handicapped is concerned, it is submitted that the said candidate was an eligible candidate from handicapped category for whom the age limit prescribed in the Government resolution dated 10 th May, 2002 was 45 years. He was thus rightly called upon for the interview by the MPCB and was appointed.

51. Insofar as appointment of Pratap Garje is concerned, it is submitted that he had been appointed for VJ(A) category of caste and as per Government resolution dated 5th December,1994 had been permitted to interchange the category of the appointment of candidate from VJ(A) to NT(D). He submits that the MPCB has appointed backward class candidate as per the Government resolution dated 16th November,2007 and there was no illegalities committed by the MPCB insofar as appointment of the backward class candidates are concerned. He submits that after scrutiny, it was found that the candidates at serial nos.57 to 63 of the selection list were from Schedule Tribe and therefore were placed on the website of the respondent instead of serial nos. 56 to 62.

kvm 84 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

52. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the backlog had been filled up against total number of posts in the cadre of Field Officers i.e. 204, taking into consideration roaster points in various categories including handicapped and woman reservation.

WRIT PETITION NO. 7841 OF 2009

53. Mr.Aney, learned senior counsel for MPCB invited our attention to some of the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra dated 13th August 2010 in Writ Petition No.7841 of 2009. He submits that it is clear that the Environment department accorded its approval on 20 th August 2009 for creation of additional 517 posts including 84 posts of Field officers. He submits that in the said affidavit, the State Government has contended that since the applications received were more than three times of the number of posts to be filled in, all 118 posts could be filled up from those applicants. The said decision was taken consciously to avoid re-advertisement and to save time. It is stated in the said affidavit that it would have been prudent for the Member Secretary to seek the consent of the Chairman since the number of vacancies went up by more than two times.

54. Learned senior counsel for MPCB states that the State Government has also clarified and dealt with various issues raised by the petitioner in various petitions and has denied the averments made by the petitioner in most of the petitions. He submits that ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 85 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc though in the said affidavit, the State Government made its decision clear, none of the petitioners applied for any amendment to the writ petition so as to challenge the list dated 5 th November 2009 which was final selection list issued by MPCB. He submits that the list was already published on the website of MPCB on 29th October 2009.

55. In so far as the issue raised by the petitioner that large number of the candidates were interviewed by the selection committee appointed by MPCB on the same day which was impossible is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that it is not open to this Court to examine such issue. He submits that every wrong cannot be corrected in a writ petition and even if it is wrong, unless it is illegal, it cannot be set aside by this Court.

56. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the candidates were given same marks by all committee members of the selection committee under different heads which shows malafides and fraud on the part of MPCB is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for MPCB that giving of same marks to all the candidates by all the members of the selection committee is not a crime and no conclusion can be drawn by this Court based on such marking. He submits that no such plea has been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. He however submits that he is not able to explain why and how the same marks were given to all the candidates by all the members of the selection committee under different heads. He however submits that it is not the case of any of the petitioners that all the candidates were given same marks ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 86 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc with malafides intention. No legal injury is caused to the petitioner even if all the candidates were given same marks by all the members of the selection committee under different heads. He submits that even if the same marks given by all the members of the selection committee to all the candidates who were selected, it would not amount to an actionable claim.

57. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the State Government in its affidavit has rightly contended that the appointment of all the reserved category candidates were in consonance with the reservation policy. The board did not consider the future vacancy or probable vacancy but considered the actual vacancy and sanctioned the post on the date of filling up the vacancy.

58. Learned senior counsel for MPCB distinguishes an unreported judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 6th May 1997 in Civil Application No.818 of 1997 in Writ Petition No.2443 of 1993 in the case of Bhagwantrao R. Shira & Ors. Vs. The Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board and Anr. (supra) on the ground that the facts before this Court in that case were totally different.

59. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for MPCB on the subsequent day relied upon the following judgment of the Supreme Court in support of various submissions made by Mr.Aney, learned senior counsel for MPCB and tendered compilation thereof.

60. It is submitted by Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for MPCB that all members of the selection committee were independent and highly qualified members and were not capable of being influenced by any party and if any malice is attributed against the members of the selection committee, they would be necessary party to the writ petition. He submits that it is not possible now to conduct any probe into the record of selection committee to find out as to on what basis the marks were given by the selection committee to the selected candidates.

61. Mr.Dixit, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 8 submits that the advertisement issued by MPCB for inviting applications for the posts of field officers was on 21st January 2009 whereas this writ petition was filed by the petitioner only on 6 th November 2009 belatedly. The respondent nos.4 to 8 were subsequently added as party-respondents to the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has amended the writ petition and has ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 88 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc added various grounds, in so far as the challenge of the appointment of the respondent nos.3 to 8 is concerned, in the month of April 2010. He invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by his clients. It is submitted that his clients were already in service with MPCB on a contract basis with consolidated salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel invited our attention to some of the annexures to the affidavit-in-reply showing the appointments of his clients on a contract basis by MPCB.

62. It is submitted that since the respondent nos.4 to 8 were already in service on a contract basis, after considering their merits and qualifications, they were also called for interview by the selection committee of the MPCB. The respondent nos.4 to 8 were present for interview and after considering their experience and educational qualification and in view of they being already in service on a contract basis, they were selected on merits for the post of Junior Research Fellow for the period of one year by issuing an appointment order dated 29th July 2006 to 31st July 2007. The respondent nos.4 to 8 were again appointed by issuing another appointment order dated 29th July 2006 since they were in service with MPCB on a contract basis. He submits that the State Government had issued a letter dated 24 th July 2009 in favour of Member Secretary of the MPCB directing them to give priority to the contractual employee i.e. Junior Research Fellows who had requisite qualification for the post of field officers.

63. It is submitted that in so far as the respondent no.7 is ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:31 ::: kvm 89 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc concerned, his appointment was confirmed under the category of project affected persons. The land of the respondent no.7 was acquired in the year 2005 by issuing the notification dated 10 th August 2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The District Rehabilitation Officer had issued a certificate on 6 th October 2009 to the effect that the respondent no.7 was a project affected person. It is submitted that in so far as the respondent no.5 i.e. Manohar Rustam Wakale is concerned, he belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and he is also project affected person and, therefore, his appointment was considered under the Scheduled Caste category. In so far as the respondent no.4 i.e. Ravindra Govind Kshirsagar is concerned, he had passed the Bachelor of Technology (Sugar) which was one of the degree equivalent to the B.E. (Sugar).

64. Learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 8 placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 18 th July 2008 and would submit that 5% quota was reserved for project affected person and thus they were not requited to file any application for the said post in reservation of the project affected person. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the letter addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra to the MPCB on 23 rd July 2009 informing that 5% posts were to be reserved for project affect person. He submits that at the time of filing of an application for the post of field officer, the respondent no.7 could not have any certificate of project affected person. The application was made by the respondent no.7 on 17th September 2009 whereas the Government had issued a certificate of project affected person to the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 90 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc respondent no.7 on 6th October 2009.

65. Learned senior counsel does not dispute that no seniority list was called from the Collector for filling up the quota of 5% for project affected person. He placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) and in particular paragraph 40 thereof. He placed reliance on paragraph 'H' of the affidavit-in-reply dated 13th August 2010 filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra contending that as per the information given by MPCB officer, the said 5 candidates were appointed on 6th October 2009 who were already in service with MPCB on contract basis and as per the Government letter dated 24th July 2009, the board was requested to consider the PAP employees who were already in service on a priority and thus they were appointed on the posts of field officers.

66. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the averments made in the affidavit dated 9th August 2012 filed by Ms.Sujata Shetye, the Accounts Officer (Establishment Branch) of the MPCB-the respondent no.2 herein which was filed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in this writ petition to the state whether the respondent nos.4 to 8 had been recruited against 34 vacancies so advertised and whether any preference has been given to them as project affected person ? He submits that according to the said affidavit, the project affected candidates were appointed as per the Government Resolution dated 18th July 2008 and such project ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 91 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc affected persons were not required to be filled up or were not required to apply pursuant to any advertisement and to compete with other candidates. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the selection of the project affected candidates i.e. the respondent nos.4 to 8 were not done by selection procedure of advertisement and interview was not conducted for their appointment. No list was called by MPCB while recruiting project affected employees in the MPCB as field officers. He invited out attention to the order dated 6 th October 2009 appointing the respondent nos.4 to 8 in MPCB as field officers.

67. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the appointment of the respondent nos.4 to 8 has been challenged by the petitioner only in this writ petition. The challenge to 5% quota of project affected person was not successful in the Writ Petition No. 6463 of 2011 which petition was dismissed by an order dated 1 st February 2012. The age of the petitioner in the year 2009 was 30 years.

68. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the prayers made in the writ petition. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J. and K. & Ors. , reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 and more particularly paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 21 and 25 thereof. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6465 of 2015 delivered on 20th August 2015 and in particular paragraphs 3, ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 92 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc 4, 12, 17, 18 and 25 in support of the submission that the petitioner having participated in the selection process, he cannot allowed to challenge the selection procedure. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and Anr. (supra).

69. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that no government resolution was admittedly passed permitting the appointment of the employees already working with MPCB on contract basis. He submits that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra had already filed an affidavit admitting that the seniority list was not called by MPCB from the District Rehabilitation Officer in their jurisdiction while recruiting the project affected candidates by MPCB as field officers. He submits that the appointment of the respondent nos.4 to 8 were made on 6 th October 2009 which were admittedly after the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court delivered on 9th July 2009.

70. It is submitted that the candidates who claimed in the category of project affected person could be eligible only if they would have fallen in that category on the date of the advertisement and not on the date of selection process. The petitioner could not participate since the petitioner did not fall under the said project affected person category and the same was not reflected in the advertisement issued by MPCB. He submits that the powers exercised by the respondent no.3-MPCB in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 8 is totally arbitrary and contrary to the judgment delivered by the Full ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 93 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc Bench of this Court. He submits that the appointment of the respondent nos.4 to 8 thus deserves to be set aside and fresh selection procedure shall be initiated in so far as the project affected candidates are concerned.

71. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the observations made by this Court in the order dated 12 th July 2010 observing that MPCB had flouted various mandatory procedure and had recruited more than 100 candidates. This Court had made such observation after perusal of the original file produced before this Court.

WP 3608 of 2010.

72. Ms.Pradnya Talekar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 9, 11, 13 to 19, 21 to 27, 29 to 52, 54 to 67, 69, 71 to 78 and 80 to 114 who are some of the candidates selected by MPCB submits as under :-

(a) None of the petitioners were placed in the waiting list in any category and thus have no locus to challenge the individual appointment of the successful candidates. These petitions are not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and are thus not maintainable.

(b) In so far as the submission of the petitioner that more candidates were selected by MPCB than the posts advertised is concerned, she ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 94 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc submits that in the advertisement itself, MPCB had categorically mentioned that it was empowered to appoint more persons than the posts advertised based on the policy taken in the public interest to comply with the statutory duty of MPCB and the same was also permissible by the Supreme Court in its judgment.

(c) In so far as the issue raised by the petitioner that name of the concerned department was deliberately not mentioned by MPCB in the advertisement and only PO Box number was mentioned is concerned, it is submitted that MPCB has taken a policy decision to deliberately not mention the name of the department to avoid exertion of influence and bad practices in recruitment. The said decision of MPCB was not challenged by any of the petitioners in this writ petition and thus cannot be looked into by this Court.

(d) In so far as the issue as to whether MPCB was under an obligation to conduct a written test before appointing any candidate in question is concerned, it is submitted that none of the recruitment rules contemplated the conduct of written examination for the selection of field officers. She submits that the definition of 'test' ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 95 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc in Rule 1(f) prescribes oral test. She submits that out of 590 applications found eligible, MPCB was bound to call only 333 candidates for interview as the posts to be filled were 111 i.e. in the ratio of 1:3. MPCB however invited all the candidates for interview in order to have a broad base in the selection. The petitioner accepted the process of the oral test and interview without any protest and the petitioner were estopped from making a grievance against the oral test at this stage.

affected because of the alleged deficiencies in case of some of the individual candidate. No public interest litigation can be filed in service matters. There are 11 petitioners in 5 writ petitions.

(f) Mr.Pradeep Karad, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 did not apply for the post of field officer in response to the advertisement issued by MPCB nor was interviewed subsequently by MPCB. The other 10 petitioners had applied for appointment but had failed. No challenge can be permitted in favour of individuals. These 10 candidates had participated in the selection process and thus ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 96 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc cannot be allowed to challenge the selection process. Unsuccessful candidates however, can challenge the deficiencies which they did not know when applied and not other deficiencies. There is gross delay in filing Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 by Mr.Pradeep Karad.

candidates were interviewed. Only 11 candidates had approached this Court. No substantial prejudice is caused to any of the petitioners by not allegedly following the requisite procedure by MPCB.

(h) In so far as issue raised by some of the petitioners that large number of candidates could not have been interviewed on the same day by the selection committee appointed by MPCB is concerned, it is submitted that only 590 candidates had turned up for the interview. Prior to facing interviews, the candidates had to go through the rounds where their documents were verified and endorsement to that effect was already made on their file before they went before the interviewing panel. She submits that about 14 hours per day were spent by the selection ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 97 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc committee in the interview process with only break for lunch and thus the panel would have spent 5.2 minutes on each candidate in the interview process.

(i) In so far as the allegations of the petitioner that the same marks were given to each candidates by all the members of the selection committee is concerned, it is submitted that MPCB had constituted a five member selection committee consisting of highly placed dignitaries so as to ensure transparency in the selection process and to avoid any controversy. MPCB had also maintained a detailed record of marks for each candidate. It is quite possible that the five members would discuss each candidate based on the criteria prepared by MPCB so as to have clarity on the degree of suitability of each candidate and give marks with common consensus. She submits that there is nothing wrong in such process so that if few candidates were found to be the best fit in the entire lot of candidates interviewed in that day, mere differences in standards of stringent and lenient marking shall not deprive him or her a place or vice versa.

to the chart i.e. "Oral Test Marks Chart" annexed at Exhibit - 'R-2' to the affidavit dated 17 th August 2010 filed by Mr.Ajit R.Suryawanshi-the respondent no.41, one of the appointed candidates, in Writ Petition No.7730 of 2009 and would submit that the selection committee had prescribed the category of selection of the candidates on the basis of marks assigned in the oral test. A copy of the alleged criteria prescribed for the oral test marks was annexed at Exhibit-'R-

2'. She submits that out of 100 marks, the selection committee members had given marks according to the criteria prescribed by the selection committee as shown in the said chart. The said chart is dated 26th October 2009 signed by four persons. Out of those four persons, one of the signatories is the Law Officer of MPCB.

The interviews were already over on or before 26th October 2009.

(k) It is submitted that no personal allegations are made by the petitioner against any of the successful candidates and more particularly that they were not eligible for participation in the interview or for appointment. No case of suppression or misrepresentation is made by the petitioner against any of the selected candidates.

kvm 99 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc Appointments of some of the candidates were made under VJA category. None of the petitioners claimed appointment under VJA category. Name of none of the petitioners were shown even in the selection list or waiting list. Some of the respondents were already in service with MPCB and had applied for the said job pursuant to the advertisement issued by MPCB and were interviewed and selected.

MPCB while making appointments to the post to be filled up for field officer or not is concerned, it is submitted that the selection list dated 7 th November 2009 would show that all reservations including the female reservation and handicapped reservation have been granted. She submitted the written arguments for consideration of this Court. It is submitted that large number of candidates are already appointed after following due procedure by MPCB and have been working for last several years and their appointments cannot be disturbed by this Court based on the alleged irregularities committed by MPCB.

Vs.Amarjeet Singh and Ors., (1999) SCC (L&S) 1451 (paragraph 3);

application which was allowed by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel that his client was appointed pursuant to an order dated 8th November 2011 passed by this Court and thus the appointment of his client cannot be disturbed or set aside by this Court. He invited our attention to some of the averments made in the civil application for intervention and also affidavit-in-reply filed by his client. He submits that his client is qualified as M.Sc. which was one of the degree equivalent to qualification prescribed in the advertisement as well as in the recruitment rules. His client was appointed to the post of field officer by the Member Secretary, MPCB by an order dated 8th November 2011. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged only the first selection list in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010. Salary and increments are already paid by MPCB to all these candidates for all these years.

kvm 102 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc WRIT PETITION NO. 7841 OF 2009

74. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder would submit that the Government Resolution dated 18th July 2008 makes it absolutely clear that the project affected person could be appointed only after calling for names from the Collector which fact is also admitted by MPCB in its affidavit. The seniority list of such persons has to be obtained by MPCB before making any appointment to the posts filled up in project affected persons category. The entire appointment of these project affected persons is thus in violation of the Government Resolution. He submits that the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2009 is also applicable to the non- technical post. He strongly placed reliance on paragraph 40 of the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court referred to aforesaid. He submits that the alleged project affected persons have been directly appointed by MPCB after the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court came to be delivered and in violation thereof. He pointed out the illegality of appointment of Mr.Gajanan D. Khadkikar and other candidates. He submits that MPCB could not have made any appointment of any candidates by back door entry.

Mr.Dixit, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 8 placed reliance on paragraph 39 of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court and would submit that in this selection process, the procedure of the project affected persons was almost complete before the said judgment of the Full Bench of this Court came to be ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 103 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc delivered.

WRIT PETITION NO. 7639 OF 2009

75. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that various grounds raised in the petition are not dealt with by the respondents. He submits that the conditions provided in the advertisement issued by MPCB does not permit the increase of the number of appointments. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B.Swapna & Ors. , (2005) 4 SCC 154 and in particular paragraphs 10 and 13 thereof in support of the submission that no candidates more than posts can be filled up. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arup Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , (2012) 5 SCC 559 and in particular paragraphs 17 to 19 thereof.

76. In so far as the report dated 22nd April 2008 relied upon by the State Government in the additional affidavit filed before this Court is concerned, it is submitted that the subject matter of the writ petition before this Court was only regarding the controversy in respect of bio medical waste and not for filling up the posts for field officers.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3608 OF 2010

77. Mr.Bachate, learned counsel for the petition invited our attention to the letter dated 22nd January 2009 addressed by his client to MPCB and would submit that the petitioner did not apply ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 104 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc for the said post in response to the said advertisement since the said advertisement was totally faulty. The petitioner had raised protest against the said faulty advertisement. He placed reliance on the following judgments :-

Electricity Board & Ors. And other connected matter, (1996) 4 SCC 319 (paragraphs 11 and

iv) Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd.

Vs. State of W.B. & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044 (paragraph 5).

78. It is submitted that the powers which can be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide powers. All five petitions are being heard by this Court and not only the Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010. He submits that by filing these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have exercised their legal rights as well as fundamental rights and thus these writ petitions are maintainable.

kvm 105 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

79. In so far as the submission of the learned senior counsel for MPCB that the pleadings filed by the petitioners are vague is concerned, he submits that the pleadings have to be read as a whole and not in isolation. He invited our attention to various grounds raised in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 and also to the averments made in the rejoinder. He submits that since the respondents had suppressed various true and correct facts, the petitioner was required to obtain various information and documents under the provision of the Rights to Information Act, 2005 including the mark-sheets of the said selected candidates. Those documents are placed on record. The respondents did not deny the authenticity of those documents. He submits that since the petitioner had brought the gross illegalities and fraud committed by the respondents on record, this Court has ample power to set aside the entire selection process in toto and can direct the respondents to issue fresh advertisement and to appoint the candidates in accordance with law.

80. In so far as the report submitted by Crisil Advisory Services relied upon by MPCB is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said agency was appointed by MPCB who had submitted a report to the Board. No reliance thereon can be placed by the respondents against the petitioners. The MPCB had considered the said report and did not send the same to the Government. He submits that the MPCB cannot justify its action based on the said Crisil's report. He submits that after considering the problem of bio medical waste, the Government had sanctioned 31 posts for bio medical waste and 24 posts for field officers and not 31.

kvm 106 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc The advertisement however was issued on the same date for 34 posts.

81. In so far as the two selection lists published by MPCB is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither MPCB nor the selection committee had power to revise the selection list once displayed. He submits that the selection list was revised by the Member Secretary, who was the Chairman of the selection committee and had no power to issue such revised list. The selection committee has not followed the requisite selection process prescribed in various Government Resolutions. He heavily placed reliance on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court about the conduct of MPCB in carrying out the selection process and tendered a separate chart showing the illegalities committed by MPCB.

82. Mr.Gujarathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Chief Secretary in the proceedings.

REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

83. We shall first decide the contentions raised by the petitioners as to whether there was any illegality committed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board by making appointments of the persons more than the posts advertised and more particularly of 117 persons as against the 34 posts advertised while appointing the field officers.

kvm 107 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

84. It is not in dispute that the advertisement was issued by the MPCB for appointing the field officers in respect of 34 posts on 21st January,2009 and the applications were invited in respect of various posts including the posts of field officers. The MPCB has filed an affidavit in reply to Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 contending that the Government of Maharashtra had sanctioned 31 posts on the establishment for effective implementation of the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 so as to comply with the order dated 9th January,2009 passed by this court in Public Interest Litigation Nos.32 of 2006 and 41 of 2006. It was contended that the special permission is granted to recruit the posts so as to cope with the implementation of Bio-Medical Waste Rules. A perusal of the record indicates that all the posts of field officers were recruited by the MPCB under water pollution and not for implementing the Bio-Medical Waste Rules.

85. The record further indicates that MPCB did not make any appointment to the posts of field officers for implementation of the said Bio-Medical Waste Rules. Though the MPCB placed reliance on oral alleged permission from State Election Commission in the affidavit in reply filed by MPCB, no confirmation is obtained from the Election Commission purporting to have granted any such permission orally in favour of MPCB for making appointment in respect of the pronouncement of the Code of Conduct. A perusal of the affidavit filed by MPCB indicates that it is the case of the MPCB itself that the Selection Committee had decided to fill up 113 posts. None of the rules relied upon by the MPCB for filling up such posts would indicate ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 108 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc that such decision could be taken by the Selection Committee itself to fill up the posts more than the posts advertised. It has been vehemently urged by the learned senior counsel for the MPCB that the Board had received 1147 applications for various candidates from throughout Maharashtra in response to the said advertisement dated 21 st January,2009.

86. It is also the case of the MPCB that in the meantime the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra sanctioned 517 new posts on the establishment of the Board which included 84 posts of the field officers created on the establishment of the board. It is the case of the MPCB that out of 1174 posts, 84 candidates were appointed on the sanctioned posts whereas 24 candidates were appointed in compliance with the order passed by this Court in two public interest litigations, 9 candidates were appointed on new vacancies having arisen in the meanwhile. It was also the case of the MPCB in the affidavit that the State Government permitted the MPCB to fill up all the posts in view of the fact that a large number of candidates had applied for 34 posts and were available for filling up the additional posts.

87. A perusal of the record indicates that no such alleged permission/sanctioned had been granted by the Government of Maharashtra post issuance of the advertisement permitting the MPCB to appoint candidates over and above the posts advertised on the ground that the large number of the candidates had applied for the said 34 posts which were advertised and were available for filling up the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 109 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc additional posts. No policy decision alleged to have been taken by the Government has been produced on record.

88. On 25th June,2010 this court passed further order and made prima facie observation that against the advertisement issued for filling in 34 posts, how could 111 persons be appointed and that itself raises eye-brows. This Court directed that it was imperative for the respondent no.1- Secretary to disclose the stand of the State Government. This Court directed the MPCB to publish on the website and notice board regarding pendency of this writ petition wherein the appointed candidates were made respondents. This court clarified that the subject appointments shall be subject to the further orders passed in this petition.

89. This Court after perusing the original file produced by the MPCB made various observations about the irregularities committed by the MPCB in making appointments in an order dated 12 th July, 2010. noticed an order passed by the Division Bench in the public interest litigation matter bearing Writ Petition No. 32 of 2006 wherein it was recorded by the Division Bench a statement made by the learned A.G.P. appearing for the MPCB that the Government had sanctioned 31 posts and they were in process of filling up the posts. Various endorsements were made in the original file from pages P-1 to P-53 in respect of 31 to 34 posts to be filled in. This court had also considered the affidavit in reply filed by Shri Sham Narayan Dhakate, Deputy Secretary, Environment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32, who was one of the member of the Selection Committee who had contended ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 110 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc that in respect of the recruitment, the entire power and responsibility vest with MPCB. The Member Secretary was the appointing authority for the employees of Board whose maximum pay scale did not exceed Rs.1150/-.

90. It was contended in the said affidavit that the appointing authority will be the Selection Committee constituted by the MPCB if the pay scale of the employees was exceeding Rs.1150/-. It was contended by the State Government in the said affidavit that the State Government was not at all responsible for the appointment of the employees and the officers in the MPCB. The MPCB was however under obligation to follow the necessary directions given from time to time apart from the Recruitment Rules framed by the MPCB and approved by the State Government. It was also the case of the State Government in the said affidavit that the State Government would make necessary inquiry and take suitable action, if it was found that any irregularities were committed and discrepancies were found in the procedure adopted for making appointments.

91. In paragraph (10) of the said order dated 12th July, 2010, this Court prima facie observed that the Court was highly disturbed to note that responsible statutory body constituted under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 flouted various mandatory procedure and went ahead to recruit more than 100 candidates. It is further observed that the grounds raised by the petitioners raising objection to the appointment, prima facie, appears to be substantial and serious one. The original file before this Court ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 111 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc surprisingly does not contain document in respect of manner in which the marks were allotted by the Committee to the candidates. This court also made it clear that in case there was some other file in respect of allotment of marks, Pollution Board was still entitled to place before this Court. This Court also observed that as on today, none of the responsible members of the then Committee nor State Government was taking over responsibility of the circumstances resulting in the present situation. This Court in the said order directed the MPCB to intimate in writing to the respondents-appointees in respect of the pendency of the petitions and next date of hearing. This court made it clear that the appointment made by the MPCB shall be subject to the outcome of these petitions.

92. This Court passed further order on 7th July,2010 and observed that it would be appropriate if the Deputy Secretary of the Environment and Pollution Control Department attends the hearing of these petitions along with the responsible senior officer of the Pollution Control Board with original record. This Court once again directed the MPCB to intimate to all the appointees that their appointment would be subject to outcome of these petitions and further directed not to alter or modify the appointment orders, if they are already issued, until further orders.

93. A perusal of the affidavit in reply dated 27th September,2010 filed by the MPCB in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 clearly indicates that insofar as the number of appointments having made by the MPCB much more than the posts advertised is concerned, ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 112 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc it is the stand of the MPCB that the MPCB had received 1147 applications from various candidates throughout Maharashtra pursuant to the said advertisement dated 21st January,2009. It was decided to call 843 deserving candidates fulfilling the recruitment criteria for the interview. The Board had constituted a Selection Committee. It is alleged in the said affidavit that the Board had considered the report submitted by M/s.Crisil Advisory Services and also requirement of additional manpower in its 148th Meeting held on 25th February,2009 and 12th March,2009 and resolved that there was an urgent need of additional manpower on the establishment of the Board more than double the existing strength. However, to achieve minimum compliance level and the norms of the Board, atleast 620 posts should be sanctioned immediately. The MPCB had accordingly submitted a proposal to the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra for necessary approval as required under sub section 3 of section 12 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and corresponding section under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 . However, the State Government sanctioned 517 posts out of which 84 posts of the field officers were sanctioned. The Selection Committee decided to fill up the newly sanctioned posts of the field officers, because of sufficient number of eligible candidates being available for the interview and accordingly 113 candidates were recommended for the appointment.

94. The State Government filed an affidavit dated 12th July, 2010 in Writ Petition No.7841 of 2009 contending that since the subject matter of the writ petition was the recruitment of certain posts ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 113 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc in the MPCB, the entire power and responsibility vest in the MPCB. It is further contended that the employees whose pay scale was Rs.1150/-, the appointing authority would be the Selection Committee constituted by the MPCB and thus the Member Secretary and the Selection Committee of the MPCB are the responsible authority for making appointments of the MPCB. It is contended that the State Government is not at all responsible for the appointment of the employee and the officers in the MPCB. The MPCB is supposed to make appointment in pursuance of the Recruitment Rules approved in this behalf by the State Government. After approval of the recruitment, respondent no.2 board is solely responsible for the appointment to be made by the Board. The MPCB is supposed to make appointment in pursuance to the Recruitment Rules and the reservation made applicable to the State Government and is an under obligation to follow necessary directions given from time to time apart from the Recruitment Rules framed by the MPCB and approved by the State Government.

95. In paragraph (7) of the said affidavit it is stated that if it is found that there were some irregularities committed while making appointment and also there are some discrepancies found in the procedure adopted for making appointments, the State Government will make necessary inquiry and take suitable action.

96. State Government has filed an affidavit dated 13 th August, 2010 in Writ Petition No.7841 of 2009 in the aforesaid matters. Insofar as this issue is concerned, it is alleged in the said affidavit that ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 114 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st January,2009, the MPCB had received 1147 applications. In the meantime, the Environment Department recorded its approval on 20th August, 2009 for creation of additional 517 posts including post of field officers. The Member Secretary of MPCB decided to conduct selection procedure to make recruitment of all 118 posts of field officers. It is contended that the said decision was taken consciously by the MPCB to avoid re- advertisement and to save time. However, it would have been prudent for the Member Secretary to seek the consent of the Chairman since the number of vacancies went up by more than two times. The MPCB conducted the recruitment process by way of interview in the month of October 2009 as per the provisions of the recruitment Rules and considered the vacant posts that became available till end of August 2009. It is contended that in the present case, the additional new posts had been taken into account by the MPCB.

97. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the State Government as well as by the MPCB clearly indicates that it is their case that the additional posts were sanctioned by the State Government after issuance of the advertisement by the MPCB. It is the clear stand of the State Government that MPCB was solely responsible for appointment of various candidates to the posts and not the State Government. Both the authorities had taken a stand that the Selection Committee had decided to fill additional posts and to call additional number of candidates for interview. Neither the State Government nor the MPCB could place on record any provision of the Recruitment Rules of MPCB or any directives issued by the State Government for approval ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:32 ::: kvm 115 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc granted by the State Government permitting the Selection Committee to appoint additional candidates after issuance of the advertisement issued based on the original sanction order and based on the sanctioned granted posts issuance of the advertisement.

98. It is the case of the MPCB itself that only 24 posts were sanctioned pursuant to the order passed by this Court out of the said 34 posts and those posts were filled up for the purposes for which this court had ordered MPCB to fill up those posts in public interest litigation. It is thus clear that remaining posts filled by the MPCB other than those 24 posts were not in accordance with any directions or orders passed by this court in the public interest litigation or in any other matters. A perusal of the record indicates that the stand taken by the State Government and by the MPCB on this issue is inconsistent. The MPCB also has taken a contradictory statement in various affidavits filed in the aforesaid proceedings.

99. We shall now deal with various judgments relied upon by both the parties. Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (supra) has held that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clearing vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointments then the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates. The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 116 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. In our view, the MPCB and also the State Government could not produce any policy decision taken by either of them for appointing more candidates than the posts advertised. In our view, the Selection Committee who has purported to have exercised such powers had no authority to appoint any candidates in excess of the posts advertised. Admittedly no corrigendum was issued by MPCB to the earlier advertisement thereby proposing to appoint additional candidates.

100. There was no bar against the MPCB to appoint candidates by issuing fresh advertisement pursuant to the additional sanction if any granted by the State Government. Admittedly, the appointment made by the MPCB pursuant to the said advertisement was after more than the period of 12 months. It is also not the case of the MPCB that it had cancelled the earlier advertisement and had issued a fresh advertisement based on the additional sanction of the posts if any. The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the said judgment .

101. Supreme Court in case of Secretary, A.P.Public Service Commission vs. B.Swapna and Ors. (supra) has followed the judgment in case of Prem Singh and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (supra). It is held that once it is most satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did not have the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 117 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated. Being in contravention of the establishment prescribed by the advertisement, the power to relax must be clearly spelled out and cannot be otherwise. In our view, this judgment of Supreme Court also applies to the facts of this case. The powers of Selection Committee to ignore the condition prescribed in the advertisement and to appoint additional candidates is not spelled out clearly under any of the Recruitment Rules applicable to the parties and thus such power should not have been usurped by the Selection Committee to make additional appointment over and above the posts advertised in the advertisement.

102. Supreme Court in case of Arup Das and others vs. State of Assam and others (supra) has held that it is well established that an authority cannot make any selection/appointment beyond the number of posts advertised,even if there were large number of posts available than those advertised. The principles behind the said decision is that if that was allowed to be done, such action would be entirely arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution since other candidates who had chosen not to apply for the vacant posts which were being sought to be filled, could have also applied if they had known that the other vacancies would also be under consideration for being filled up. In the said judgment , Supreme Court also adverted to the earlier judgment in case of State of U.P. vs. Rajkumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330 in which it was held that filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised would be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 118 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc and that selectees could not claim appointments as a matter of right. It is also held that even if in some cases appointments had been made by mistake or wrongly, that did not confer any right of appointment to another person, because Article 14 of Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if State had committed a mistake, it could not be forced to perpetuate the said mistake.

103. Supreme Court adverted to the earlier judgment in case of Prem Singh and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (supra) also in the said judgment . The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Arup Das and others vs. State of Assam and others (supra) would squarely applies to the facts of this case. In this matter, no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances existed requiring filling up of additional posts after issuance of the advertisement for 34 posts only. In our view, merely because the MPCB had received more applications than the posts advertised, that could not be a ground for filling up substantial number of posts in excess of what was advertised. In our view, merely because the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 had not applied for the post of field officer pursuant to the advertisement issued after pointing out the illegalities and flaws in the advertisement issued by the MPCB, he has still locus to challenge the entire selection process adopted by the MPCB. We are respectfully bound by the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Arup Das and others vs. State of Assam and others (supra).

kvm 119 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

104. Supreme Court in case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Veena Verma and Anr. (supra) had considered a note put up in the advertisement that "the number of posts is likely to increase"

105. Supreme Court in case of Rakhi Ray and Ors. vs. High Court of Delhi and Ors. (supra) has held that it is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as "the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, of those persons who acquired eligibility for the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 120 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. It is held that filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to "improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rational", otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law. It is held that such appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised is without jurisdiction. The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Rakhi Ray and Ors. vs. High Court of Delhi and Ors. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the said judgment .

106. Insofar as MPCB is concerned, learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (supra) on this issue which supports the case of the petitioner and not the MPCB.

107. Insofar as judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana and another (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appointees is concerned, the interviews were held after more than three years from the date of issuance of the advertisement. The Supreme Court had considered a Government ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 121 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc circular which permitted filling up of additional posts falling vacant after the issuance of the advertisement and till the date of interview. In our view , the said judgment is clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case and would not assist the case of the MPCB or the appointees. No such circular is produced by the respondents in this case. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment referred to aforesaid has taken a different view.

108. Insofar as judgment of Supreme Court in case of Virendra S.Hooda and others vs. State of Haryana and another (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appointees is concerned, Supreme Court had considered the policy declared by the State Government as to the manner and filling up the post and that policy was declared in terms of the rules and instructions issued by the Public Service Commission from time to time and such policy was not contrary to the rules. In the facts of that case, Supreme Court held that the employer was entitled to appoint persons in excess of the post advertised. No such policy decision taken by the Government or by the MPCB in conformity with the Recruitment Rules has been placed on record by the State Government or by the MPCB for consideration of this court. The judgment of Supreme Court in case of Virendra S.Hooda and others vs. State of Haryana and another (supra) thus would not assist the case of the MPCB or the appointees and is clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case.

109. Insofar as judgment of Supreme Court in case of Anurag Kumar Singh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (supra) ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 122 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc relied upon by the learned counsel for the appointees is concerned, the Supreme Court has held that the selection pursuant to the advertisement should be confined only to the posts that were advertised and the additional posts that were created after the expiry of the recruitment year shall be filled up by issuance of an advertisement afresh. In our view , the said judgment thus would assist the case of the petitioner and not the appointees.

110. In our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the MPCB and in the submission of the learned counsel for the appointees that the MPCB was justified by appointing more candidates than the posts advertised in view of there being a note in the advertisement that the posts were likely to be increased or on other grounds canvassed before this court. In our view, the MPCB could not have appointed the candidates in excess of the posts advertised. The actual appointments were made by the MPCB much after expiry of the 12 months from the date of advertisement. In any event, no policy decision was taken earlier to demonstrate that in what circumstances the MPCB could have filled up the additional posts sanctioned after the issuance of the advertisement or in the event of the MPCB having received more applications for the posts advertised. Admittedly, the posts sanctioned by the State Government was not the posts more than the posts advertised before issuance of the advertisement. The candidates who apply for the posts may consider the number of posts available as shown in the advertisement and thus those who do not apply for such posts based on the number of the posts mentioned in the advertisement would be deprived of such ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 123 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc appointment. In our view such action on the part of the MPCB is clearly in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the well settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court referred to aforesaid.

111. Insofar as the issue of locus raised by the MPCB as well as by the appointees in respect of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 is concerned, Supreme Court in case of The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd.(supra) has held that Article 226 confers a very wide power on the High Court to issue directions and writs of the nature mentioned therein for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. It is held that the persons other than those claiming fundamental right can also approach the court seeking a relief thereunder. The Article in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder; but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. It is held that the right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified.

112. In this case, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the MPCB various illegalities in the advertisement itself issued by the MPCB. It is the case of the petitioner that since the MPCB did not rectify those illegalities by issuing fresh advertisement, the petitioner did not apply for the said post. In our view, the petitioner is entitled to ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 124 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc agitate and to bring to the notice of the court the illegalities committed by the public body by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the MPCB that this court not having assigned the public interest litigation matters, such writ petition and more particularly bearing number 3608 of 2010 filed by Mr.Pradeep Ganpatrao Karad cannot be entertained by this court on the ground that the petitioner had not applied for any relief in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the MPCB or the State Government to appoint the petitioner in place of these successful candidates.

113. In our view, the illegalities committed by the public body can be brought to the notice of the Court by any person by exercising his rights under the provisions of Constitution of India and by adopting the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even if the particular court has not been assigned the public interest litigation matters, a writ court is not deprived of exercising even suo-motu power by issuing a writ against the Government or any other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India to eliminate such illegalities or to prohibit the Government or other authorities from committing any illegalities. Be that as it may, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners aforesaid are not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

114. Be that as it may, the grievances made by all the petitioners in these five petitions being almost identical on the same subject matter, this court can exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in any of the five petitions and can pass an ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 125 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc appropriate order against the MPCB or the State Government. It is not in dispute that the all five petitions were heard together. The plea raised by the respondents in all five petitions are also common. In other four petitions, the petitioners have sought reliefs in their favour. In our view, there is thus no merit in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the MPCB that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 had no locus to file such petition or that none of the petitioners can also be allowed to agitate the grievances made in their respective petition on the same ground.

115. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.Prakash and Anr. Vs. K.M. Kurian and Ors. (supra) relied upon by Ms.Talekar, learned counsel for some of the appointees is concerned , the said judgment in our view is not even remotedly applicable to the facts of this case. Reliance placed on the said judgment is thus misplaced.

116. A perusal of the record indicates that MPCB did not call any list from the Employment Exchange. The news was not published through the Office of the Employment Exchange nor the advertisement was published on the website of the Government of Maharashtra and of Employment Exchange. The seniority list from the Office of the Employment Exchange was not called though was mandatory as per the policy decision taken by the State of Maharashtra in Government resolution dated 19th October, 2007. MPCB or State Government has not disputed this position. These lapses on the part of the MPCB were serious in nature and affected the rights of various candidates ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 126 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc who were eligible and were deprived from applying for such post in absence of such publication.

117. A perusal of the record further indicates that no woman candidate was appointed in the selection committee though the same was required in terms of the government guidelines as per the government resolution dated 10th December, 2004 and 19th October, 2007. In our view, the constitution of the selection committee itself was thus not proper and in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 10th December, 2004 and 19th October, 2007.

118. It is not in dispute that the appointment in question to the post of field officers was of class III category. It is also not in dispute that MPCB did not hold any written test before appointing any candidate to the post of field officers. In so far as the State Government as well as the MPCB is concerned, it was their stand in the affidavits as well as during the course of the arguments that the recruitment rules did not provide for written test but only provided for oral test/interview. This issue has been considered by this Court in the case of Kisan Sukhdeo Lokhande (supra) specifically. In that matter also, the selection could be made solely on the basis of the assessment of oral interview. This Court after adverting to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , reported in 1981 (4) SCC159 and other judgments held that the selection process in that matter was of such a nature, that it gave unfettered discretion in the members of the selection committee, to choose any candidate of their choice. There were no ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 127 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc guidelines, so as to guide the members of the committee in the manner in which the candidates were to be assessed in the oral test.

119. This Court also considered in that matter that the posts sought to be filled in were Class-III posts. Considering such facts which are identical to the facts of this case, this Court held that the nature of the posts, for which the selection was made, were such as could be selected only on the basis of assessment on viva voce test. In such cases, since the posts sought to be filled in were Class-III posts, it was necessary to have assessed the candidates on the basis of written test and only after the candidates cleared the written test, the final selection process could have been done on the basis of assessment on written and oral examination, in the proportion permitted by the Apex Court in its various pronouncements.

120. This Court held that the selection process which is based on hundred per cent viva voce test is unreasonable and leads to arbitrariness. This Court accordingly quashed and set aside the entire process and directed the authority to hold selection for the post keeping in mind those observations. In our view, the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kisan Sukhdeo Lokhande (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the said judgment passed by this Court. In this case also admittedly, the entire selection was based on the oral interviews only which also was conducted in an illegal manner as already highlighted in the other part of the judgment. In this case also, the appointments were made in respect of class III category post ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 128 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc and thus powers exercised by the selection board of MPCB was exercised without any guidelines and were unguided powers which leads to total hardship and arbitrariness to the other genuine candidates.

121. The record produced before this Court by the petitioner which is not disputed by the MPCB or the State Government showing the marks allotted to each of successful candidates upon such so called interviews shows glaring and patent illegalities and fraud committed upon the genuine candidates so as to oblige the selected candidates. In our view, in these circumstances, even though the recruitment rules permitted the MPCB to appoint candidates merely on the basis of the interviews on oral test, considering the nature of post and the sanctity of such post, selection committee ought to have conducted the written test so as to obviate any allegation of arbitrariness and to make the process of appointment more transparent. The entire selection process conducted by the MPCB without holding written test in such a situation was illegal and thus deserves to be set aside on this ground also. We are thus not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the MPCB and also by the learned counsel for the appointees that there was no illegality on the part of the selection committee to appoint candidates merely based on the oral interviews. There was no bar from conducting written test.

122. A perusal of the record further indicates that MPCB has not followed the ratio provided for appointment for reserved ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 129 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc candidates and as a matter of record, the reservation exceeded upto 65%. MPCB also did not follow the ratio of 33% reservation of the remaining category though the said reservation was given by the Government resolution for the woman, Department of State including the MPCB. The candidates at serial nos.14 to 16 and 56 to 62 who were some of the respondents in this petition have been selected though they were not in the list of selection or waiting list. Though the advertisement did not provide the reservation on the post under the category of Project Affected Person (PAP), selection committee appointed several candidates purportedly under the category of PAP.

123. A perusal of the record further indicates that MPCB has selected over-age candidates. The advertisement has provided the upper limit of 35 years whereas the MPCB has appointed the candidates of 41 years and above on the pretext that those employees were already in service of MPCB or the State Government. In our view, the candidates who were already in service of MPCB or the State Government could not have been given any relaxation in age while making their recruitment to the post of field officers.

124. A perusal of the record further indicates that the candidates who were having more than two children were appointed on the selection process contrary to the policy decision taken by the State Government. The candidates who were appointed in the reserved category were not even asked to produce caste validity certificate when they were appointed on the reserved category posts.

kvm 130 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

125. A perusal of the advertisement indicates that the qualification required for the post of field officer was a degree in engineering or post graduate in environment or equivalent qualification whereas Mr.Karandkar Surendra Gajanan though was holding the Bachelor of Technology degree which was not equivalent to the qualified degree or post graduate in environment was selected by MPCB contrary to the condition prescribed in the advertisement.

126. A perusal of the advertisement indicates that out of 34 posts which were required to be filled for Field Officer, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste, 5 posts for Scheduled Tribe, 1 post for NT and 27 posts reserved for open category candidates. No post was reserved for the project affected persons though required to be reserved as per the Government policy and resolution dated 1980.

127. A perusal of the record further indicates that MPCB however appointed the respondent nos. 3 to 8 illegally without following due procedure of law in project affected persons category quota contrary to the conditions prescribed in Government resolution dated 18th August, 2008 vide appointment order dated 6th October, 2009. The record further indicates that the respondent no.3 has been appointed on the post of Field Officer after publishing the advertisement on the basis of recommendation made by the District Collector, Jalgaon. Though Mr.Ravindra Govind Kshirsagar i.e. respondent no.4 was not having a requisite qualification, the said candidate having qualification of Bachelor of Technology (sugar), he was appointed to one of the posts of field officer. The certificate of ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 131 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc respondent no.6 i.e. Mr.Pankaj Bawane as project affected persons was transferred from his brother Makarand Bawane on 5 th September, 2009 i.e. much after publishing the advertisement, he was however appointed illegally to one of the posts of Field Officer.

128. The respondent no.7 was also not having certificate of project affected person at the time of advertisement or at the time of selection but was issued certificate only on the date of appointment i.e. 6th October 2009, he was however illegally appointed to one of the posts of field officer. It is an admitted position that these appointments were not recommended by the District Collector from the seniority list maintained by the Collector's Office and are thus in violation of the Government Resolution dated 18th August 2008. Some of the petitioners were though eligible to be appointed in project affected person category have been deprived of the appointment to the said post under the said category. In our view, MPCB could not have appointed such candidates under the category of PAP on the basis of such recommendation made by the State Government or by the Collector without inviting a list of such project affected persons from the Collector's office. Even such persons who were eligible to be appointed under the PAP category were also required to compete inter se and were required to fulfill other conditions for appointment.

129. Mr.Dixit, learned senior counsel for some of such appointees appointed under the category of PAP could not justify the appointments of his clients and also could not demonstrate as to how they could be appointed to the said post without there being any ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 132 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc advertisement of such posts and without inviting seniority list from the Collector's office.

130. A perusal of the affidavit-in-reply dated 13th August 2010 filed by the State Government on the issue of appointments of PAP indicates that MPCB had given appointment to six persons from that category i.e. one candidate on 4th August 2009 and five candidates on 6th October 2009. It is the case of the State Government that at the time when these appointments were made, Government Resolution dated 18th August 2008 was in force for appointments of PAPs. As per this Government Resolution, persons under such category were to be given appointments on the basis of seniority after calling list of PAP candidates from District Collectors/Rehabilitation officers and posts reserved for PAP categories were not required to be advertised. It is alleged in the said affidavit that as per information given by MPCB officer, the said five candidates were appointed on 6th October 2009 and were already in service with MPCB on contract basis and as per Government letter dated 24th July 2009, the MPCB was requested to consider the PAP employees who were already in service, on a priority.

131. It is thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that no seniority list of PAP was called from District Collectors/Rehabilitation officers and appointments were made based on letter addressed by the Government letter dated 24th July 2009 or by the District Collector as per their whims. Learned senior counsel for MPCB also could not ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 133 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc defend or justify the action of appointing such persons under category of "project affected persons." In our view, the candidates who claimed under the said category ought to have been eligible on the date of advertisement and not on the date of the selection process or interview or on the date of the appointment. No such candidate who did not fall under the said PAP category on the date of advertisement could apply and participate and also could not have been appointed to the said posts.

132. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare & Anr. (supra) has held that though Article 16(4) would permit a horizontal reservation to be made in favour of a weaker section of the society which is socially and educationally backward, like the project affected persons, the mandate of Article 14 and 16 would not permit an appointment to be made of the persons from the reserved category by ignoring the relevant recruitment rules and the inter se merit. It is held that the quota of 5% fixed for project affected persons is nothing but a horizontal reservation provided for project affected persons and the candidates from that category will have to compete amongst themselves under the recruitment rules and the best amongst them would be entitled to be appointed. By the said judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court, the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sunil Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in 2008 (5) Mh.L.J 436 came to be reversed. Full Bench in the said judgment held that the project affected persons cannot be appointed without advertising the posts, ignoring their qualifications and merit. In our view, the judgment delivered by the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 134 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare & Anr. (supra) interpreting the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 would squarely apply to the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the said judgment .

133. We are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr.Dixit, learned senior counsel for some of the project affected persons who were appointed to the post of field officer that the said judgment of the Full Bench was not pronounced on the date of issuance of advertisement by MPCB or on the date of selection and thus would not apply to the facts of this case. In our view, MPCB was bound to publish an advertisement calling applications from the candidates from project affected persons while filling up posts from reserved category and could not have appointed any candidate under that category without such advertisement ignoring their qualifications and merit merely on the basis of some recommendation letters issued by State Government or by the District Collector or on the basis of those employees already being in service with the department of MPCB. Such candidates who deserved to be appointed under the said category are also bound to compete with each other on merit and are required to fulfill several other conditions. In our view, the appointment of these candidates by MPCB under that category is ex facie illegal, contrary to law and in violation of well settled principles of law laid down by this Court. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that MPCB has permitted these candidates to submit the alleged proof of they being project affected persons much after issuance of advertisement and till ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 135 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc the date of appointment which also is ex facie illegal and contrary to law.

134. In so far as the stand taken by the MPCB that some of these employees who were appointed to the posts of field officer were already appointed on contract basis and were thus eligible to be appointed to the posts of field officer is concerned, Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Ors. (supra) has held that appointment of a person not having been made after issuing the public advertisement and being purely on contractual basis, the stage of acquiring the status of a Government servant had not arrived and such contractual employees were not governed by Government Service Rules, it was not possible to hold that he was a government servant. Supreme Court held that such employee could not be said to be a Government servant as he was working on contract basis and thus he was not eligible for any relaxation in upper age limit. In our view, the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Ors. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this case.

135. Such persons who were appointed on contract basis by MPCB and not having appointed in accordance with the procedure required to be filled up on regular basis could neither be granted any relaxation in age nor could be considered for appointment to such post of field officer on the basis of their existing appointment on regular basis and they being considered as existing employees ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 136 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc already working with the same employer. The appointment of such contractual appointees already working with MPCB thus could not have been considered for the post of appointment of field officer being not eligible to the said post. If those persons working on contractual basis would have independently applied for such post in response to the advertisement issued by MPCB and were also eligible in accordance with the Rules and terms and conditions of appointments, they could have been independently appointed to the said post and not merely on the ground that they were already in employment of MPCB on contract basis.

136. Be that as it may, a perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7577 of 2009 were though eligible to the post of field officer and were having requisite qualification for such appointments, instead of appointing them, MPCB selected several candidates having no fulfilled eligibility criteria and were not having requisite decrees required as one of the conditions for appointment of such post. MPCB has not bothered to appoint candidates in accordance with the condition prescribed in the advertisement and also has violated the Government Resolution and also the principles of law while appointing the candidates to the post of field officer.

137. A perusal of the record further indicates that though the candidates who were resident of Maharashtra State were eligible to apply for the post of field officer, candidates at Serial Nos.14 and 15 on the waiting list were from Sikkim, Manipal University and have ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 137 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc been selected. A perusal of the record further indicates that though the candidates at Serial Nos.36, 50 and 74 were from open category and had crossed the age of 35 years and thus were not eligible were however appointed by MPCB to the post of field officer.

138. As per the Government Resolution dated 30 th March 2009, the handicapped person is not entitled to the post of field officer. The MPCB however has appointed the candidates at Serial Nos.8 and 76 to the post of field officer though such candidates were handicapped. The candidates at Serial Nos.14 and 15 whose names were not even mentioned in the selection list nor in the waiting list are appointed directly by MPCB contrary to the Government Resolution dated 27th June 2008.

139. A perusal of the record further indicates that the candidates at Serial Nos.1, 3, 25, 31, 41, 42, 52 and 55 were possessing the qualification of M.E.M. which was though not treated as equivalent since the said faculty was the Commerce faculty and was not the degree of Engineering or Environment Science as prescribed in the advertisement dated 21st January 2009, those candidates were appointed by the MPCB to the post of field officer contrary to and in violation of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement. Similarly, the candidates at Serial Nos.68 and 76 were though possessing qualification of post graduate diploma in Environment Science which was not qualified and such diploma holders were not eligible for the post of filed officer, those candidates were appointed by MPCB contrary to the conditions prescribed in the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 138 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc advertisement. The candidates at Serial No.13 i.e. Hemant Vasant Kulkarni whose names was appearing in the waiting list and who had not even applied pursuant to the advertisement was called for interview and was appointed as one of the field officers. The candidates at Serial Nos.36, 50, 74 and 99 had over aged and had crossed the age of 35 years but were appointed to the post of field officers contrary to the recruitment rules and conditions prescribed in the advertisement.

140. In so far as the submission of Mr.Aney, learned senior counsel for the MPCB that since appointment of none of the candidates is challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 and thus the writ petition is a futile writ petition and cannot be entertained by this Court is concerned, though the petitioner had not challenged the appointment of any particular candidate but has challenged the entire selection process on the ground of fraud and illegalities and also in view of the fact that this Court has heard all the five petitions together, we are not inclined to dismiss the said Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the appointment of any particular candidate in the said writ petition. Similarly, we are also not inclined to reject this petition on the ground that the petitioner had admittedly not participated in the selection process and has not prayed for his appointment to the post of field officer. Since the entire selection process has been impugned by the petitioner, it is not necessary that the petitioner shall also seek his appointment in the petition. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to pass any order for appointment of any of the petitioner to ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 139 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc the post of field officers in these petitions upon setting aside the entire selection process.

141. If the posts of field officers are re-advertised, each of the petitioners can apply for the said post subject to their eligibility. In our view, if the entire selection process is illegal and fraudulent and since the illegalities are of such nature that it cannot be cured individually, the said selection process can be set aside even in such petition filed by an individual challenging the entire selection procedure as illegal.

142. In so far as the submission of the learned senior counsel for the MPCB that various grounds raised in the Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 are vague and without particulars and thus MPCB was not required and expected to give a detailed explanation to such vague pleadings is concerned, a perusal of the grounds raised in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 and also other four petitions indicates that each of the petitioners has raised various grounds in great detail with particulars. Be that as it may, the grounds raised in all the petitions have to be considered and not only the grounds raised in the Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 in isolation when all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. This Court does not find any substance in this objection raised by the learned senior counsel.

143. Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. , reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173 has though ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:33 ::: kvm 140 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc observed that a glaring illegality which has unfortunately not been raised in these writ petitions, however since the same was self evident from the decisions of this Court, the Court has to take note of such circumstances while making appropriate directions in such matter. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. (supra) applies to the facts of this case. It is not the case of the State Government or MPCB that they have not followed and could not understand any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in any of the petitions and thus are not in a position to deal with such grounds being allegedly vague or without particulars. In our view, since the grounds raised by the petitioner are ex facie clear and supported by various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, this Court has ample power to deal with such grounds in these petitions which are substantial in nature and shows patent illegality committed by MPCB in these matters.

144. There is no substance in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for MPCB that the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise a ground that the MPCB has not appointed any woman candidate since none of the women candidates has filed any petition alleging such illegalities on the part of the MPCB. The petitioner though not being woman can bring such illegalities to the notice of this Court while pointing out other illegalities committed by MPCB in conducting the selection process and making various appointments to the post of field officers. This submission of the learned senior counsel is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.

kvm 141 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

145. In so far as the submission of the learned senior counsel for the MPCB that the MPCB was required to appoint various candidates in view of the directions given by the High Court in two Public Interest Litigations is concerned, a perusal of the record and the orders passed by the High Court indicates that out of large number of appointments made by the MPCB, only 24 posts of field officers were sanctioned by the State Government in compliance with the orders passed by the High Court in those two writ petitions and thus the MPCB cannot be allowed to take shelter of orders passed by this Court in those two Public Interest Litigations for filling up large number of posts illegally. It is the case of the MPCB itself that out of 34 posts of field officers, 24 posts of field officers were sanctioned by the MPCB in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in those Public Interest Litigations.

146. In so far as reliance placed on the report alleged to have been submitted by M/s.Crisil recommending the filling up of the vacancy or to make appointments is concerned, it is not in dispute that though the said report was obtained in the year 2005, the same was alleged to have been relied upon only in the meetings held on 25th February 2009 and 12th March 2009 which was much after the issuance of advertisement and after receiving the applications in response to the said advertisement from various candidates. The said report thus could not have been considered for filling up of the additional post in excess of the posts advertised by the MPCB.

kvm 142 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

147. In so far as the submission of the learned senior counsel for the MPCB that in the advertisement issued by MPCB, it was provided that MPCB is empowered to relax the condition of the post of the reserved category and thus could have made additional appointments is concerned, even if such condition was mentioned in the advertisement, that would not empower the MPCB to commit violation in the reservation policy and various conditions prescribed by the State Government by issuing various Government Resolutions and also contrary to the recruitment rules.

148. In support of the submission that the MPCB has considered 30% reservation and under that quota, 20 women Field Officers were selected, the MPCB could not produce any authentic record before this Court. On the contrary, it is admitted in the affidavit-in-reply that the roaster upto the year 2000 was not even prepared and was under preparation. Having taken such stand in the affidavit, the MPCB or the State Government cannot be allowed to take a plea that the appropriate number of reserved category candidates were appointed by the MPCB. Inaction on the part of the MPCB in not preparing the roaster till 2000 itself was a serious inaction and would clearly indicate that deserving reserved category candidates were not appointed by the MPCB. There is no substance in the submission of the learned senior counsel that Mr.Pantavane who was allegedly a handicapped person was eligible candidate from handicapped category and was rightly appointed in that category by the MPCB.

kvm 143 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

149. In so far as the submission of Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the MPCB that highly qualified members of the selection committee were not capable of being influenced by any party and no malice can be attributed against such members or that they would be a necessary party to the writ petitioner is concerned, in our view, there is no merit in this submission of the learned counsel. The manner in which the selection procedure was conducted by the selection committee members would clearly indicate that the entire procedure followed by such selection committee was totally illegal and in violation of law and the condition prescribed in the Government Resolution. The selection committee members are not necessary parties to the writ petitions and are thus rightly not impleaded by the petitioners.

150. In so far as the submission of Ms.Talekar, learned counsel for some of the appointees that none of the petitioners were placed in the waiting list in any category and thus have no locus to challenge the individual appointment of the successful candidates is concerned, this submission is devoid of merit. The petitioner has challenged the entire selection procedure as illegal and without authority of law. Except the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010, rest of the petitioners had applied for the post of field officers and having been seriously affected in view of the large scale illegalities committed by MPCB in appointing large number of candidates to the post of field officers, the petitioners had thus locus to challenge the entire selection procedure including the individual appointments of the successful candidates. There is no merit in the submission that unless the ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 144 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc appointment of any individual candidate is challenged because of whose appointment of individual candidate is affected, no petition can be entertained. The entire selection process has been challenged by the petitioner as illegal.

151. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 has placed on record "Second copy of Mark Memo of Field Officer Interview" dated 22nd October 2009 to 25th October 2009 which was obtained by the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 which document was not disputed by the MPCB or by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out various discrepancies in the said mark memo of the field officers and various patent illegalities committed therein by the selection committee. A perusal of those documents clearly indicates that the interviews were alleged to have been held by the selection committee between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. in the slots of 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m., 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.

152. A perusal of that record indicates that on 22nd October 2009 itself, the selection committee has alleged to have interviewed 257 candidates during the period between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. We take a judicial notice that during that period, selection committee must have taken a break for tea, refreshment and for lunch etc. Large number of candidates were also interviewed during that period and subsequent days of interview. When these facts were brought to the notice of the learned senior counsel for MPCB, in his reply, learned ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 145 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc senior counsel could not justify as to how so many candidates could be interviewed in a single day.

153. The only submission of the learned senior counsel on this issue was that it is not open to this Court to examine such issue in writ petition and that the every wrong cannot be corrected and set aside in a writ petition. In so far as the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for some of the appointees that all the criteria under those four categories were not to be considered when the actual interview was taken but some of them were already considered earlier such as scrutiny of documents and that the interview was not taken only between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. but continued on each day for 14 hours i.e. between 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m., no such record is produced by the MPCB or by any appointees before this Court.

154. MPCB who had appointed selection committee however did not take any such stand though filed various affidavits in these petitions nor produced any record contrary to the authentic record produced by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010 i.e. "Second Copy of Mark Memo of Field Officer Interview" dated 22nd October 2009 to 25th October 2009. It was not even argued across the bar by the learned senior counsel for the MPCB that the interviews were conducted between 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. None of the appointees also produced any proof in support of any such allegations. It was not the case of the MPCB or appointed candidates that timing mentioned in the documents produced by the petitioner for the interviews was incorrect or that there was a separate record ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 146 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc for interview alleged to have been taken between 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. MPCB could not justify such fraudulent selection process adopted by it which was brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner.

155. We are thus not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned senior counsel for MPCB that since there were no illegalities alleged to have been committed by the MPCB and thus selection cannot declared as illegal or cannot be set aside by this Court. We are also not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appointees that some of the activities which were considered at the stage of interview were already considered prior to commencement of the interview or that the interview was held between 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. These two arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appointees are ex facie false, inconsistent and contrary to the record.

156. A perusal of the record produced by the petitioner recoding the alleged marks allotted to each of the candidates by the selection committee clearly indicates that marks were to be given to all the candidates out of total 100 marks in four categories i.e. (i) Knowledge, (ii) Qualification, (iii) Personality and (iv) General. A perusal of the record indicates that all the selection committee members have allotted similar marks to each candidates accordingly under all four categories.

kvm 147 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

157. One of the candidates i.e.Mr.Tuljapurkar Dnyaneshwar Mishra though was shown as absent by the chair person of the committee, other four persons had given him 74 marks and the said candidate is appointed by MPCB. The candidates at serial nos.168 to 170 are marked as absent by the chairman of the selection committee whereas the other four members of the selection committee have given them marks. The candidate at serial no.81 was initially shown having given marks but was subsequently shown as absent. The marks of Mr.Mayuresh Ghorpade though were 73 which were identical to the marks allotted to Mr.Indrajit Deshmukh and Mr.Avinash Kadale and though Mr.Mayuresh Ghorpade who was senior in age ought to have been appointed, he was not appointed by the MPCB. Mr.Borkar and Mr.Mahajan were in the selection list, but the MPCB has not appointed the said candidates. Mr.Vastre and Mr.Tambe were not in the selection list, but they were appointed. Mr.Vishal Dixit who was at serial no.78 had secured 62 marks and was eligible for appointment from OBC category. His marks were subsequently reduced so as to knock out his name from the list of selected candidates. The marks of the several candidates were over written. Though Mr.Vastre and Mr.Tambe were not in the selection list, but they were appointed. Mr.Vishal Dixit who was at serial no.78 had secured 62 marks and was eligible for appointment from OBC category, his marks were subsequently reduced so as to knock out his name from the list of selected candidates. The marks of the several candidates were over written in the said copy of the mark memo produced on record by the petitioner.

kvm 148 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

158. The argument of the learned senior counsel for MPCB on these patent illegalities on the marks awarded by the selection committee members was that giving of same marks to all the candidates by all the members of the selection committee is not a crime and no conclusion can be drawn by this Court based on such marking. It is further urged by the learned senior counsel that no such plea has been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. He however conceded that he is not able to explain as to why all the candidates were given the same marks under different heads. It is urged by the learned senior counsel that no legal injuries would be caused even if all the members of the selection committee have been given the same marks to all the candidates under different heads.

159. It is lastly submitted by the learned senior counsel that even if the same marks given by all the members of the selection committee to all the candidates who were selected, it would not amount to an actionable claim is concerned, in our view, each of these arguments made by the learned senior counsel for the MPCB is made without any basis. It is not the case of the petitioner that the selection committee had committed any crime by giving the same marks to all the candidates in all the categories. The petitioner has pointed out the patent fraud committed by the selection committee of the MPCB while conducting the selection procedure. There is no satisfactory explanation coming from MPCB. The arguments of the MPCB that there is no crime committed by the selection committee or that there is no actionable claim is irresponsible and deserves to be rejected at the threshold.

kvm 149 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

160. In our considered opinion, large number of candidates could not have been given the same marks by all the selection committee members in different categories. It cannot be a matter of coincidence that hundred of candidates are given the same marks by five selection committee members in four categories. We are of the considered opinion that the manner in which the selection process was conducted by the selection committee appointed by MPCB and the interviews were held including the number of candidates having been interviewed on each day and the pattern of marks would clearly indicate that the MPCB had already pre-determined the names of the candidates to be selected, marks to be given by each of the selection committee members to each of candidates under different categories with a view to appoint the committed candidates by adopting such unlawful means.

161. Though the Division Bench of this Court had granted liberty to the respondent -MPCB to produce the other files, if any, in respect of allotment of marks, the MPCB did not bother to produce any other files to satisfy this Court that the marks allotted to each of the candidates by each of the selection committee members were in order and to demonstrate that no illegalities were committed by the selection committee while conducting interviews or otherwise. In our view, the MPCB has committed a scam by appointing large number of candidates illegally with predetermined intention at the cost of public exchequer and have deprived the legitimate candidates who were entitled to such appointments. Each and every appointment is ex ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 150 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc facie illegal being in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, recruitment rules, in breach of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court.

162. In so far as pattern of marks is concerned, the respondent no.41 who was one of the appointed candidates placed reliance on an alleged chart i.e. "Oral Test Marks Chart" annexed at Exhibit - 'R-2' to the affidavit dated 17th August 2010 filed by him in Writ Petition No.7730 of 2009 in support of his contention that the selection committee had prescribed the category for selection of the candidates and the basis of marks to be assigned in the oral test.

163. Ms.Talekar, learned counsel for some of the appointees also heavily placed reliance on the said alleged chart which was allegedly signed by four persons. When this Court enquired with the learned counsel about the source and authenticity of the said alleged document, learned counsel did not have any answer to the said query raised by this Court. The MPCB admittedly has neither referred to any such chart nor relied upon in any of the affidavits filed by him before this Court during the lengthy arguments. When this Court in the first session brought to the notice of the learned counsel Mr.Deshpande who appeared for MPCB to produce an authentic copy of such chart if the same is forming part of the record of the present proceedings or of the record of the MPCB, in the afternoon session, Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the MPCB produced photocopy of the compilation of the documents found in the record of MPCB for ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 151 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc perusal of this Court. Learned counsel fairly pointed out that the said document was not forming part of these proceedings nor the same is relied upon by MPCB in any of the affidavits or across the bar.

164. A perusal of the said photocopy produced for perusal of this Court by the learned counsel for the MPCB however indicates that the said alleged chart was dated 26th October 2009 and was signed by four persons. Out of those persons, one of the signatory was the Law Officer of the MPCB. The interviews were almost over on 26 th October 2009. All the selection committee members had not signed the said alleged chart. This Court has also noticed that the said document was allegedly signed by Mr.Mahesh Pathak (Member Secretary), Mr.Shyam Dhakate (Deputy Secretary) and Mr.Pramod Jadhav (Special Social Welfare Officer). Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel informed that the said chart was also signed by Mr.D.T. Deole who was not a member of the said selection committee out of five selection committee members but was a Law Officer. He conceded that the said alleged chart was not signed by other two selection committee members. On close scrutiny of the said alleged document produced by the MPCB from the compilation of documents of MPCB not forming part of record, it is clear that there was overwriting on page 527 of that compilation where the said so called chart was inserted. The pagination on the said alleged chart was done by pencil. The said chart though allegedly was dated 26 th October 2009 was inserted in the said file after letter dated 6th November 2009.

kvm 152 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

165. In our view, it is thus clear that the said so called chart prescribing the marking pattern allegedly decided by the members of the selection committee is a fraudulent document. Be that as it may, the said alleged chart was not forming part of the record of MPCB nor the same was brought to the notice of this Court by MPCB who alone could be the custodian of the said document. A photocopy of the said alleged chart was surprisingly produced by some of appointees. Be that as it may, the said chart was dated 26 th October 2009 when the interviews were almost over. No such marking pattern could be decided by the selection committee after completion of interviews or in any event, after commencement of interview without framing of any guidelines by the State Government or by MPCB. Be that as it may, the said alleged chart was not signed by all the five committee members that was dated 26th October 2009 and was also signed by the Law Officer who was not at all concerned with the alleged marking patterns.

166. A perusal of the said alleged document would also conclusively prove that some of the selection committee members have decided to allot identical marks to all the candidates who were to be selected as predetermined by the selection committee of MPCB. All the candidates having different qualifications could not have been given the same marks. Each candidates may have different personality, knowledge and qualification or can be given different marks under General category. No satisfactory explanation has been rendered either by the State Government or by MPCB or by appointees to controvert the patent illegality and fraud committed by MPCB ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 153 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc brought on record by the petitioner.

167. In so far as the submission of the learned senior counsel for MPCB and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appointees that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there was any irregularities in the selection process conducted by the MPCB, this Court shall not quash the entire selection procedure and shall not disturb the appointments of various candidates already made and who are already in service for last several years is concerned, as indicated aforesaid, we are of the view that the entire selection procedure followed by the MPCB was totally illegal, fraudulent, in violation of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement, in the recruitment rules, in various Government Resolutions referred to aforesaid and also in violation of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court, the same thus deserves to be quashed and set aside.

168. Division Bench of this Court also made strong prima facie observations about such illegalities committed by the MPCB and had observed that the Court was highly disturbed to note that responsible statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 flouted various mandatory procedure and went ahead to recruit more than 100 candidates. This Court also observed that the grounds raising objection to the appointment prima facie appears to be substantial and serious one. This Court also observed that the original file before this Court at that time surprisingly did not contain document in ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 154 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc respect of manner in which the marks were allotted by the committee to the candidates.

169. Supreme Court in the cases of Khub Ram Vs.Dalbir Singh & Ors. (supra), State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr. ( supra), State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Manshu Kumbhkar , reported in 2008 AIR SCW 488, Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in ( 2006) 4 SCC 1, Hitendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Dr.P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth & Ors. (supr), State of Orissa & Anr. Vs.Mamata Mohanty (supra) and M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Nanuram Yadav & Ors. (supra) has considered the issue that when the entire selection process is illegal, such entire selection process has to be quashed and set aside irrespective of fact whether the candidates were already appointed quite sometime back and were already in service and were getting service benefits.

170. It is not in dispute that this Court had passed several orders in these writ petitions even at the threshold thereby directing the petitioner to implead the appointees to the post of field officers which appointments were made on the basis of such selection procedure and also directing the MPCB to inform each of them about the pending procedure and that their appointments would be subject to outcome of these petitions. Accordingly, all appointees were put to the notice about these orders passed by this Court from time to time and they continued to be in employment with full knowledge of these orders. None of the candidates appointed thus can claim ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 155 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc any equity on the ground that they are already in the employment for last more than 8 years and their appointments thus cannot be set aside on that ground.

171. In the aforesaid judgments, it is held by the Supreme Court that recognition of power exercisable by the functionaries of the State as a trust which will stand discharged only if the power is exercised in public interest is an important milestone just as recognition of the Court's power of judicial review to be wide enough to strike at and annul any State action that is arbitrary, unguided, whimsical, unfair or discriminatory. The Government and so also all public bodies are trustees of the power vested in them. It is also held by the Supreme Court in one of the aforesaid judgments that illegal appointment of the selected candidates was at the cost of claim of other genuine selected candidates whose cases could have been considered if action had been taken at appropriate time. Supreme Court in such a situation directed the State of Haryana to compensate by paying an amount of Rs.3 lakh within two months and also deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

172. Supreme Court in the case of Khubh Ram Vs.Dalbir Singh (supra) has set aside the appointment even after 20 years having found the appointment totally illegal. Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in the remaining judgments referred to aforesaid where the entire selection procedure came to be set aside having held that the same was totally illegal. The principles of law ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 156 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments would squarely apply to the facts of this case. In our view, all the appointees were illegally appointed and were put to the notice at the threshold that their appointments were subject to outcome of these petitions and having made strong prima facie observations cannot be shown any equity by this Court by directing the State Government or MPCB to regularize their appointments in the facts of this case. However, we are not inclined to direct the employees who were appointed pursuant to such illegal selection procedure to return the salary and other benefits earned by these candidates from the date of appointments till fresh selection procedure is adopted by the MPCB. We are thus inclined to set aside the entire selection procedure conducted by the MPCB and all the appointments which were made of various candidates pursuant to the said procedure which are the subject matter of the aforesaid petitions. We are not inclined to direct appointment of any of the petitioners to any of the posts fallen vacant in view of this order setting aside the selection procedure.

173. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments relied upon by the respondents that a candidate having participated in selection procedure cannot challenge the selection procedure. The petitioners were however not expected to know the fraud and illegalities that would be committed after issuance of the advertisement by the MPCB. Those judgments relied upon by the respondents would not assist their case.

kvm 157 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

174. We, therefore, pass the following order :-

kvm 158 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc

(iv) It is made clear that till the fresh selection process is complete, the existing employees who are appointed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board which are the subject matter of these petitions shall not be removed from service and no recoveries shall be made from their salaries. None of the employees however shall be granted any promotion or any other benefits which is not due to them during the process of completion of selection procedure;

(v) All the petitioners and existing employees who were appointed by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st January 2009 or otherwise which are the subject matter of these petitions can apply for such post if they are eligible pursuant to the advertisement that may be issued by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Appointments of all such candidates shall be made by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board in accordance with law after complying with the requisite procedure;

(vi) Maharashtra Pollution Control Board is directed to pay costs of Rs.1 lakh in five sets payable to the petitioner/s in each of the aforesaid ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:59:34 ::: kvm 159 WP3608.10&connected matters.doc judgment without fail.

(vii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.