Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subham Suresh Misale, challenged the appointment of respondent No.3, Kiran Suresh Dongare, to the post of Plumber in the Health Department of Maharashtra. The petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 22 February 2019 for two posts of Plumber (one open, one reserved). He appeared for a written test of 200 marks and secured 100 marks, while respondent No.3 secured 116 marks. Respondent No.3 was appointed on 31 May 2021. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 9 February 2024. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court noted that the advertisement prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 50% (100 marks) for the written test. The petitioner secured exactly 100 marks, but the court found that the selection process required candidates to secure more than the minimum to be considered for appointment. The court held that the petitioner had no vested right to appointment merely because he was eligible and participated. The court also noted that the petitioner did not challenge the prescription of minimum qualifying marks. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Right to Appointment - Eligibility vs. Qualification - A candidate who is eligible to participate in a selection process does not have a vested right to appointment unless he fulfills all conditions including securing minimum qualifying marks. The court held that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks and therefore could not claim appointment. (Paras 6-8)
B) Service Law - Selection Process - Minimum Qualifying Marks - The employer has the right to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for a written test. The court held that the petitioner's failure to secure such marks disentitled him from any claim of appointment. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner had a vested right to appointment merely because he was eligible and participated in the selection process, and whether the appointment of respondent No.3 was illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 9th February 2024.
Law Points
- Right to appointment
- eligibility vs. qualification
- minimum qualifying marks
- selection process
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 230
Writ Petition No.2542 of 2024 with Writ Petition No.2543 of 2024
A. S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain
Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade for the Petitioner, Ms. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent (State)
The State of Maharashtra, Deputy Director of Health Service, Kiran Suresh Dongare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to challenge the appointment of respondent No.3 and sought a direction for his own appointment.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Plumber despite the petitioner having higher marks? (actually lower marks) and being eligible.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No.668 of 2022 on 9th February 2024.
Issues
Whether the petitioner had a vested right to appointment merely because he was eligible and participated in the selection process.
Whether the appointment of respondent No.3 was illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was eligible and participated in the selection process, and therefore should have been appointed.
The respondent State argued that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks and had no right to appointment.
Ratio Decidendi
A candidate who is eligible to participate in a selection process does not have a vested right to appointment unless he fulfills all conditions including securing minimum qualifying marks. The employer has the right to prescribe minimum qualifying marks, and failure to secure such marks disentitles a candidate from claiming appointment.
Judgment Excerpts
By these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 9th February 2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal...
The Petitioner appeared for the written test of 200 marks and secured 100 marks whereas the Respondent No.3... secured 116 marks.
The petitioner had no vested right to appointment merely because he was eligible and participated.
Procedural History
On 22 February 2019, advertisement issued. On 14 March 2019, petitioner's application processed. On 31 May 2021, respondent No.3 appointed. Petitioner filed OA No.668/2022 before MAT. MAT dismissed OA on 9 February 2024. Petitioner filed writ petitions on 26 February 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
