Blog

TITLE : Akshay Ashok Chaudhari v Government of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Nitin Jamdar and Hon’ble Justice Manjusha Deshpande

DATE :  22^nd  December, 2023

CITATION : WP NO 2722 of 2023

FACTS

The Maharashtra State Reservation For Socially And Educationally Backward Class Act, 2018 was challenged for its constitutionality in the hon’ble court and was later challenged in SC which held it unconstitutional. The Act conferred a right on the individuals from the Maratha community, SEBC category, to 13% of total admissions in educational institutions and 16% of total appointments in direct recruitment for public services and posts within the State. After the interim order passed by the SC, the government of Maharashtra issued government resolution for the candidate who applied under SEBC category for public examination and were told to appear in the category of EWS (economically weaker section). This was challenged by the EWS category candidates and the tribunal upheld the challenge and disqualified those who appeared under SEBC category. The same is challenged in this hon’ble court by the SEBC candidates.

LAWS INVOLVED

Article 16(6) of the Constitution of India states that :

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.-

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

[(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category

ISSUES

Whether the tribunal erred in holding the position that SEBC candidates cannot apply in the category of EWS as per the Government Resolution

JUDGEMENT

The contentions of the petitioners were that the tribunal erred in holding the position that the GR was applied retrospectively. The respondents claimed that In the Advertisements pertaining to the recruitment processes, the vacancies for SEBC and EWS were notified separately, and even the procedures prescribed for procuring the certificates under the said categories were different and distinct under the various GRs.

The court held that the advertisements mentioned the specified number of posts allotted as  per the reservation and any changes would be communicated. The Advertisements inherently acknowledged that the reserved posts were not fixed and that any alterations would be duly notified. Further it held that applying the principle of retrospectivity requires consideration of the fact that GRs were issued under the executive power of the State to address perceived injustices for a specific class. The retrospective effect reasoning given by the tribunal was set aside by the court.

Subsequently, the tribunal’s order was set aside and the petition was allowed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement