- Case
- NITIN RAMESH RATHOD AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 17-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India.
Facts: Several petitioners, aspirants for the post of Graduate Engineer Trainee (Distribution) at Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL), challenged the condition in advertisement No. 07/2023 and its corrigendum that awarded 10% weightage to the Graduation Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) score. The petitioners argued that this condition was unconstitutional, unreasonable, and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition challenging the advertisement and corrigendum. The High Court heard the petition, considering arguments from both sides, including intervenors, and examined several judgments of the Supreme Court cited by both parties.
Issue: Is the condition stipulating 10% weightage for the GATE score in the selection process for Graduate Engineer Trainee posts at MSEDCL valid, and is the writ petition maintainable despite the petitioners' participation in the selection process?
Holding: The High Court held that the condition stipulating 10% weightage for the GATE score is unconstitutional and unreasonable. The court quashed the relevant conditions of the advertisement and corrigendum.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the 10% weightage for GATE score lacked a reasonable nexus with the purpose of the selection process, especially since an online test was already in place to assess merit. The court found that giving weightage to GATE score created an arbitrary and discriminatory classification, violating the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the MSEDCL regulations did not provide for such weightage, and the respondents failed to demonstrate a legal basis for incorporating this criterion. The court distinguished the cited Supreme Court judgments, finding them inapplicable to the present case. The court relied on the principle that estoppel does not apply when arbitrariness affects fundamental rights, and that participation in the selection process does not preclude challenging illegalities within it. The court directed MSEDCL to prepare a fresh merit list excluding the GATE score weightage and to issue appointment orders accordingly.
