Unsuccessful Candidates Cannot Challenge Selection Process On The Ground That Criteria Laid Down In Recruitment Exercise Was Illegal: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court observed that once the candidate participated in the recruitment exercise and was unsuccessful, cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that the criteria laid down in the recruitment exercise was not legal.

A Writ Petition was filed regarding cancellation of the recruitment exercise for the post of Peon undertaken by the Grampanchayat, Antargaon in the year 2022.

The Bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice Pravin S. Patil observed, “It is a well settled position of law that once the candidate participated in the recruitment exercise and being unsuccessful, cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that the criteria laid down in the recruitment exercise was not legal.”

Advocate J.R Kidilat represented the Petitioner, while Advocates D.R Bhoyar, K. J. Topale, A. R. Wagh and S. B. Bissa represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The Petitioner contended that Gram panchayat issued public notice for the post of Peon in Gram panchayat, Antargaon, Tahsil Seloo, District Wardha. The Petitioner stated that he belongs to the Caste of Mahar, and when he applied for the said post, he was twenty years of age. In the same manner, the Respondent No.6 also applied for the post of Peon in pursuance of advertisement and at the time of filing application he was thirty-three years and eight months old. However, for reserved category the age limit was 33 years.

Thereafter, due to some complaints made by the villagers to the Block Development Officer, the recruitment exercise was stayed. In pursuance of the resolution of the Gram panchayat, Petitioner came to be appointed initially for a period of six months on contract basis. The Petitioner has successfully completed six months’ period against the post of Peon. Therefore, considering his satisfactory work, the Gram panchayat confirmed his services against the post of the Peon.

However, the Respondent no. 6, who was another candidate in the process of recruitment contended that the appointment of the Petitioner was illegal. According to the Zila Parsihad, the State Government has provided the age limit for open category candidate up to thirty-eight years and for reserved category forty-three years. However, the advertisement/public notice issued by the Gram panchayat is contrary to the Government Resolution. Hence, on this count, the entire recruitment exercise was set aside and directed to start the recruitment exercise afresh.

It was pointed out that after granting order of status quo Petitioner approached to join the services, but Gram Panchayat prepared a back-date order made a show that services of the Petitioner were already terminated.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the Court noted that the services of Gram panchayat employees are governed by the Bombay Village Panchayats Servants (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1960.

The Court observed that it was a well settled position of law that once the candidate participated in the recruitment exercise and being unsuccessful, cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that the criteria laid down in the recruitment exercise was not legal.

The Court further said, “Therefore, once he has participated in the recruitment exercise, knowingly well that he is age barred as per condition stipulated in public notice, now cannot challenge the recruitment on the ground that his candidature should have been considered by exercising the discretionary powers to relax his age limit. Hence, we are of the opinion that Respondent No.6 being overage at the time of appointment, and further he failed to furnish the documents to clarify the variation in his School Leaving Certificate, which were asked by the Gram panchayat at the time of appointment, cannot challenge the recruitment exercise after a period of 1½ years, and more particularly, when the services of the Petitioner are confirmed against the post of Peon.”

The Court observed, “We are of the opinion that the Gram panchayat being a local authority, any previous decision/resolution cannot be allowed to cancel only because body representing the Gram panchayat has been changed. If this is allowed, then there will be a chaos in the administration of the Grampanchayat which will be against the object and purpose for which Panchayat are established.”

Accordingly, the appointment of the Petitioner for the post of Peon was held to be valid and the Writ Petition was allowed.

Cause Title: Siddarth Iswar Motghare V. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:7755-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: J. R. Kidilay, Advocate

Respondents: D. R. Bhoyar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. K. J. Topale, Advocate for Respondent No.6. A. R. Wagh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. S. B. Bissa, AGP for Respondent No.1.

Click here to read/download Judgment