Courts Can’t Sit Over Decision Of Employers’ Expert Committee Which Is Conscious Of Exigencies Of Employer: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of Petitions challenging the decision of the MAHAGENCO and MSEDCL.

The Bombay High Court held that the Courts cannot sit over the decision of the Expert Committee of the Employers which is conscious of the exigencies of the employer.
The Aurangabad Bench held thus in a batch of Petitions challenging the decision of the MAHAGENCO (Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited) and MSEDCL (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited).
A Division Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar observed, “The Courts cannot delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on par with the essential eligibility, by interpretive re-writing of the terms of advertisement and that the questions of equivalence will fall outside the domain of judicial review. The position of law when applied to the instant case, it will have to be held that the Courts cannot sit over the decision of the expert committee of the employers which is conscious of the exigencies of the employer.”
The Bench added that the decision as to whether the experience of a particular entity is requisite experience for a particular post, falls within the domain of the employer and any interference in that arena is uncalled for.
Advocate Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen appeared for the Petitioners while AGP Neha B. Kamble and Advocate Rahul A. Tambe appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The MAHAGENCO published an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of ‘Executive Engineer’, ‘Additional Executive Engineer’, and ‘Deputy Executive Engineer’. The Petitioners applied for the same and after qualifying the written examination, their names were shortlisted for the stage of Documents Verification. Thereafter, a list of ineligible candidates was published which included the names of the Petitioners being held ineligible due to absence of experience certificate of IPP (Independent Power Producer).
Resultantly, the Petitioners submitted representations to the Respondents pointing out that Gangakhed Sugar and Energy Ltd. is an IPP and therefore, requested that their experience need to be counted for deciding their eligibility. Since there was no decision on their representation and their grievance remained unaddressed, they filed The Petitions before the High Court, seeking a direction to consider them for appointment to the posts of ‘Additional Executive Engineer’ and ‘Deputy Executive Engineer’ as per their applications.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “The existence of experience from an entity which is simultaneously involved in power generation, cannot be imposed upon the employer to mandatorily categorise it as requisite experience. As such, irrespective of strict categorisation of M/s Gangakhed Sugar Ltd. as ‘Captive Power Generation Plant’ or ‘Independent Power Producer’ (IPP), the final decision for the purpose of deciding the requisite experience has to be with the respondents.”
The Court said that the advertisement requires experience of IPP although no specifications of IPP are mentioned and therefore, the decision of expert committee becomes more crucial.
“It is pertinent to note, no judgment is cited by either parties, holding specifically that Gangakhed Sugar and Energy ltd. is an IPP for all purposes. In view of the overall circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that ‘IPP’ as stated in the advertisement has to be understood to include Gangakhed Sugar and Energy Ltd., cannot thus be accepted to nullify the decision of the expert committee of the respondents”, it observed.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that it is for the employer to decide the essential qualifications for a particular post and that the employer may prescribe any additional or desirable qualification including grant of preference.
“It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution is not necessary in this case.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title: Akshay Rajendra Khomne Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:1468-DB)