The State Of Maharashtra Through Additiona Chief Secretary General Administration Department vs. Pralhad Shankar Rode

Held

The High Court held that the G.R. dated April 27, 2025, prescribing a methodology for assessing merit and ability of Non-SCS officers for IAS recruitment, does not supplant the existing Rules and Regulations. The Court reasoned that neither the Rules of 1954 nor the Regulations of 1997 prescribe any specific methodology for assessing merit and ability, leaving room for the State to prescribe a transparent evaluation criterion. The Court found that the inclusion of length of service as a component for assessing ability was logical, as experience can enhance an officer's capacity. Furthermore, the Court noted that similar benchmarks had been in place since 2011 without challenge, suggesting principles of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence might apply. The Court also held that the G.R. did not violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution because the criteria were applied uniformly, did not exclude eligible candidates from consideration, and had a reasonable nexus with the objective. The Tribunal's judgment was found unsustainable.

Facts

The State of Maharashtra filed three writ petitions challenging a common judgment and order dated September 5, 2025, passed 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. prescribed a methodology for assessing the merit and ability of these officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the G.R. dated April 27, 2025, prescribing a methodology for assessing the merit and ability of Non-SCS officers for IAS recruitment, supplants the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, and the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997? The petitioner (State) argued that neither the Rules nor the Regulations prescribe a methodology for assessing merit and ability, thus the G.R. does not supplant them but provides a transparent evaluation criterion. The respondents (original applicants) contended that the G.R. was in conflict with the Rules and Regulations. 2. Whether the impugned clause in the G.R. is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the criteria were applied uniformly, did not oust eligible candidates, and had a reasonable nexus with the purpose. The respondents argued that the G.R. was discriminatory. The Court also considered the principles of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence regarding the challenge to earlier G.Rs. with similar criteria.