Rahul Krishnaji Sakore And Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Additional And Ors

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned interim order of the MAT. The Court held that the MAT's interim order was devoid of any reasons, making it liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Furthermore, the Court found that Respondent No. 1 ranked 19th in merit, with at least 18 candidates scoring higher. Crucially, none of the candidates ranking 16th to 18th were made parties to the Original Application before the MAT. Therefore, in the absence of these higher-ranking candidates, the Court held that permitting Respondent No. 1 to provisionally participate in the interview process was not legally tenable. The Court also noted that the issue of the MAT's jurisdiction to direct the UPSC need not be decided in the present proceedings and was kept open for future consideration. The Court emphasized that the criteria for assessing merit and ability under the relevant GR and Regulations should be based on actual service experience, not deemed service, aligning with the principle that length of service contributes to an officer's ability. The Court did not decide the issue of jurisdiction of the MAT to issue directions to the UPSC.

Facts

The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging an interim order dated December 2, 2025, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The MAT's order directed the State to take steps enabling Respondent No. 1, Shri. Venkatesh Madhav Bhat, to appear for an interview with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on December 5, 2025, for selection to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre from the Non-State Civil Service (Non-SCS) category. The selection process was for three vacancies. Respondent No. 1 was ranked 19th in the merit list of shortlisted candidates, and 15 candidates were to be recommended to the UPSC. Thirteen Non-SCS category candidates, who were shortlisted, filed an intervention application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the MAT had the jurisdiction to issue an interim direction to the UPSC to allow the Original Applicant (Respondent No. 1) to appear for an interview, considering the UPSC is a central agency? (Raised by Respondent No. 2/UPSC). 2. Whether the MAT's interim order, which allowed Respondent No. 1 to appear for the interview without providing any reasons, was legally sustainable? 3. Whether the criteria for assessing merit and ability for selection to the IAS cadre under the relevant Government Resolution (GR) and Regulations should be based on actual service experience or deemed service? Arguments: Petitioner (State of Maharashtra): Argued that the MAT's order was unsustainable due to a lack of reasons and that the selection process should adhere to the established rules and criteria, focusing on actual service experience for assessing merit and ability. Respondent No. 1 (Shri. Venkatesh Madhav Bhat): Contended that his case was considered and that the MAT's interim order was necessary to allow him to participate in the interview process, subject to the final outcome. Respondent No. 2 (UPSC): Raised the issue of the MAT's jurisdiction to issue directions to the UPSC. Intervenors: Supported the State's position, highlighting that Respondent No. 1 was ranked lower than other eligible candidates who were not made parties to the original application.