Bombay High Court Directs MSEDCL To Prepare Fresh Merit List Excluding Benefit Of 10% Weightage Of GATE Score
The Bombay High Court remarked that it cannot be said that engaging talented work force to meet future challenges can only be achieved by selecting the candidates having GATE score.
The Bombay High Court has directed Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) to prepare a fresh merit list excluding the benefit of 10% weightage of Graduation Aptitude Test in Engineering i.e., GATE score.
The Aurangabad Bench was deciding a Writ Petition preferred by the aspirants for the post of Graduate Engineering – Trainee (Distribution), challenging an advertisement and corrigendum, especially a condition of awarding 10% weightage to the GATE score.
A Division Bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme ordered, “The respondents/MSEDCL will have to prepare fresh merit list excluding benefit of 10% weightage of GATE score and, thereafter the appointment orders will have to be issued.”
The Bench remarked that it cannot be said that engaging talented work force to meet future challenges can only be achieved by selecting the candidates having GATE score.
Advocate Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen appeared for the Petitioners while Senior Advocate R.N. Dhorde appeared for the Respondents. Senior Advocate P. R. Katneshwarkar appeared for the intervenor.
Brief Facts
The Respondent i.e., MSEDCL floated an advertisement for recruitment of 281 posts of Graduate Engineer– Trainee (Distribution) along with 40 posts of Graduate Engineer – Trainee (Civil). The Petitioners and other candidates who did not qualify GATE or did not appear for the same for preceding three years, objected to two clauses/conditions appended to the said advertisement, which were as follows –
6.1 The candidates who have appeared for GATE examination in the last three years i.e. GATE 2021, GATE-2022 & GATE-2023 will be considered eligible for applying.
6.7 The candidates will be selected based on the score obtained in the GATE exam.
Resultantly, a corrigendum was issued, modifying the relevant conditions. Thus, candidates, who were not possessing GATE score were also made eligible for the selection. The Petitioners applied for the post in question and the last date for submitting application was extended. Thereafter, the MSEDCL conducted an examination and before appearing for the same, the Petitioners approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. The results were declared and a final select list was prepared, but due to the interim orders, appointment orders were not issued. The Petitioners challenged the condition of giving weightage of 10% to the candidates having GATE score.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “… though the object of introducing new criteria is laudable and more pragmatic, in absence of relative amendment in the regulation, it is unenforceable and vulnerable.”
The Court said that that the candidates succeeded in proving that the criteria of 10% weightage to the GATE score is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
“Petitioners cannot be said to be less meritorious than those candidates. We find no real nexus in the purpose sought to be achieved by applying those eligibility conditions for the selection. There is already online written test as a part of selection process, which is adequate to find out desirable talent. Further scrutiny by applying 10% weightage to GATE score is unreasonable in given facts and circumstances”, it added.
The Court further noted that unless there is amendment to the Recruitment Regulations 2005, it is not permissible for the Respondents to introduce the parameter in question.
“In the present case there is no question of any preferential qualification. … We do not propose to quash entire process. The candidates who participated in the process having GATE score are also eligible only if their GATE score is to be excluded. As condition Nos. 6.1 and 6.7 of the advertisement dated 29.12.2023 and condition Nos. 6.1 and 6.2 of the corrigendum dated 30.01.2024 are unconstitutional, those need to be excluded for determining the merits of the eligible candidates”, it also held.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned advertisement conditions, directed the Respondents to prepare fresh merit list, and to issue appointment orders.
Cause Title- Nitin Ramesh Rathod & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:7778-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen
Respondents: Senior Advocate R.N. Dhorde, Addl. G.P. P.S. Patil, Advocates Anil S. Bajaj, P.S. Dighe, and V.D. Khivesara.
