- Case
- AMRAPALI SIDDHARTH KHADE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 21-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India.
Facts: Several petitioners belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and OBC categories participated in a recruitment process under the Integrated Child Development Services Schemes for Anganwadi workers in Maharashtra. They challenged a government resolution dated 30.01.2025, which reduced the additional marks awarded to reserved category candidates in the selection process, arguing it was arbitrary and lacked rationale. The original Government resolution dated 02.02.2023 provided for higher additional marks.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking a declaration that the resolution dated 30.01.2025 is null and void and a direction to restore the marks as per the Government resolution dated 02.02.2023. The matter was heard finally at the stage of admission.
Issue: Is the government resolution dated 30.01.2025, reducing the additional marks for reserved category candidates in the selection process for Anganwadi workers, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law, warranting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Holding: No, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the government resolution is a matter of policy and does not warrant judicial interference, as the reduction in marks is not palpably discriminatory or arbitrary and has a rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while it has the power of judicial review under Article 226, there is inherent limitation when scrutinizing policy matters. Relying on Satya Dev Bhagaur and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others; (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 314, the Court acknowledged an exception where a policy is palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. However, it found that the reduction in grace marks, from 10 to 5 and 5 to 3, was not palpably discriminatory, especially since the government explained the rationale in its affidavit – to attract more qualified candidates in line with the National Education Policy 2022 and the need for Anganwadi workers to handle data using the Poshan Tracker Application. The Court also noted that the petitioners participated in the selection process knowing about the changed policy and filed the petition only after failing to get selected, indicating they were taking chances.
