Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a project affected person (PAP), applied for the post of Technician Class-6 in response to an advertisement issued on 4 December 2017 by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Company Limited (MSETCL). The advertisement provided that 25 additional marks would be given to MSETCL PAPs under the Skill Development Scheme, besides a 10% additional mark for candidates with apprentice training. The petitioner, who had completed two years of ITI in electrician, participated in the written test held on 17 February 2018. The first select list was published on 7 April 2018, and the petitioner's name appeared at serial number eight. However, the petitioner was not finally selected, as appointments were made on 14 November 2018. Alleging that the respondents had arbitrarily awarded 25 extra marks to their own PAP candidates, thereby bypassing meritorious candidates like him, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 5 April 2019. He contended that the additional marks violated the Government Resolution dated 27 October 2009, which mandated that all PAPs compete equally without classification, and that Circular No.518 dated 29 September 2017 was ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petition sought to set aside the entire selection process and direct the respondents to follow the Government Resolution. At an earlier stage, the petition was dismissed and later restored on 25 October 2023. When the matter came up for admission, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing that the petitioner had accepted the terms of the advertisement by participating in the selection and was now estopped from challenging the process. They also pointed to the delay of over one year in filing the petition, noting that selected candidates had been in service for more than five years. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court decisions in D.D. Sarojakumari vs R. Helen Thilakom and Others and Dhananjay Malik and Others vs State of Uttaranchal and Others. The court, after hearing parties, decided to first address the preliminary objection and examined the administrative circular and advertisement clauses in detail. The judgment, however, does not record the final decision on the maintainability or the merits of the challenge.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition is maintainable considering the petitioner's participation in the selection process and delay in filing; whether the grant of additional 25 marks to MSEB project affected persons under Circular No.518/2017 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16; whether the selection process contravenes the Government Resolution dated 27 October 2009
Law Points
- Estoppel by participation in selection process
- delay and laches in filing writ petition
- Government Resolution dated 27 October 2009
- Circular No.518 dated 29 September 2017
- Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
- additional marks for project affected persons
- maintainability of writ petition
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 112
Civil Writ Petition No. 5323 of 2019
Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, Sandesh D. Patil
Mr. Suryajeet P. Chavan for petitioner, Mr. Swapnil P. Kamble A.G.P for Respondent No.1, Mr. A. Y. Sakhare Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, Ms. Saba Shaikh for Respondent Nos.5 to 8
State of Maharashtra, The Executive Director HR MSEB, The Chief General Manager HR MSEB, The Chief Engineer EHV CC O&M Zone Karad, Nilesh Ashok Gupte, Rupali Dattatraya Thakare, Anand Bhagwan Shelar, Bhagwat Rajabau Kandhe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the selection process for Technician Class-6 posts and seeking quashing of Circular No.518/2017 granting additional marks to MSEB project affected persons.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the entire selection process, directions to respondent nos.2 and 3 to act as per Government Resolution dated 27 October 2009, and quashing of Circular No.518 dated 29 September 2017 as violative of Articles 14 and 16.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a project affected person, was not selected despite being ranked 8th in the first merit list; he alleged that respondents arbitrarily gave extra 25 marks to their own project affected persons, bypassing meritorious candidates, in violation of the Constitution and Government Resolution.
Previous Decisions
Petition was dismissed earlier and later restored on 25 October 2023; no interim relief was granted at any point.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the petitioner's participation in the selection process and acceptance of the advertisement terms
Whether there is delay and laches in filing the petition approximately one year after the select list and appointments
Whether the grant of additional 25 marks to MSEB project affected persons under Circular No.518/2017 is discriminatory and ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
Whether the selection process contravenes the Government Resolution dated 27 October 2009 which mandates that all project affected persons compete on equal merit
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that selection must adhere to the advertisement and Recruitment Regulations without overlooking merit; additional 25 marks to MSEB PAPs is discriminatory and no such classification is permitted under the Government Resolution; the circular is ultra vires and the process should be set aside.
Respondent nos.2 and 3 raised preliminary objection that the petitioner, having participated in the selection with full knowledge of the advertisement terms including the additional marks, is estopped from challenging the process; further, the petition suffers from delay and laches as it was filed over a year after the select list and appointments, and the selected candidates have been in service for more than five years.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is a project affected person (PAP).
Once the petitioner had agreed to apply as per the advertisement, once he had participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement, once he had agreed to the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement, he is estopped from challenging the terms and conditions of the advertisement.
The Administrative Circular bearing No.518 on 29th September, 2017 for implementing the PAP Skill Development Scheme grants up to 25 additional marks in the written examination to its PAP candidates.
Procedural History
Petitioner applied for Technician Class-6 post pursuant to advertisement dated 4 December 2017. Written test held on 17 February 2018. First select list published on 7 April 2018; petitioner's name at serial no.8. Appointments made on 14 November 2018; respondent no.8 joined on 20 November 2018. Petition filed on 5 April 2019. Petition was dismissed at some point and restored on 25 October 2023. Heard finally at admission stage on 30 June 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 16
