The State Maharashtra Through Additional Chief Secretary General Administration Dept Mantralaya vs. Amit Angad Pathak

Held

The High Court held that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's judgment was unsustainable. The Court found that neither the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, nor the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, prescribed a specific methodology for assessing the "merit" and "ability" of officers. Therefore, the State Government's issuance of a G.R. to prescribe such a methodology, based on pre-determined and transparent evaluation criteria, did not amount to supplanting the Central Government's Rules or Regulations. The Court reasoned that the inclusion of length of service as a component for assessing ability was logical, as experience often enhances an officer's capacity. Furthermore, the Court noted that similar benchmarks for evaluating merit and ability of Non-SCS officers had been in place since 2011, and the original applicants had not challenged these earlier G.R.s, leading to principles of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence applying. The Court also found that the impugned criteria did not exclude eligible officers from consideration and were applied uniformly, thus not violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Tribunal's decision to strike down the clause was set aside.

Facts

The State of Maharashtra filed three writ petitions challenging a common judgment and order dated September 5, 2025, by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had partly allowed three original applications, declaring a part of Clause 3 of a Government Resolution (G.R.) dated April 27, 2025, violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and struck it down. The dispute concerned the procedure adopted by the State Government under the impugned G.R. for preparing a list of candidates from the Non-State Civil Service (Non-SCS) category for recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Cadre. The G.R. aimed to prescribe a methodology for assessing the merit and ability of these officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 3 of the G.R. dated April 27, 2025, which prescribed a methodology for assessing the merit and ability of Non-SCS officers for IAS recruitment, was violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and in conflict with the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, and the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. Petitioner (State of Maharashtra) argued that the G.R. provided a transparent evaluation criterion for assessing merit and ability, which was not prescribed by the Rules or Regulations, and thus did not supplant them. They contended that the length of service, as a component of ability, had a nexus with the purpose of recruitment and that similar benchmarks had been in place since 2011 without challenge, leading to waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. They also argued that the criteria were applied uniformly and did not exclude eligible candidates. Respondents (Original Applicants) argued that the G.R. was in conflict with the Rules and Regulations and violated constitutional provisions by introducing criteria not envisaged by the Central Government's framework, thereby supplanting the Rules.