Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas, dismissed writ petitions challenging the cancellation of appointments to the post of Police Patil in Bhandara district.
The Court held that the entire selection process stood vitiated due to procedural irregularities and unlawful delegation of powers during the viva voce stage, rendering the entire process unfair and contrary to the Government Resolution (GR) dated 23 August 2011.
The Bench observed:
“When an act is required to be performed in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only. Delegating powers upon subordinate officers in such a critical process amounts to rewriting the Government Resolution.”
While acknowledging that the petitioners had already served pursuant to their appointments, the Court emphasized that “integrity of the selection process takes precedence over individual inconvenience”, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of West Bengal v. Baisakhi Bhattacharya (AIR 2025 SC 1882)
The petitions were dismissed, but interim protection already operating in favor of the petitioners was extended for four weeks in the interest of justice.
Facts
The petitioners were among candidates selected as Police Patils in different villages of Bhandara district. The recruitment followed an advertisement dated 16 March 2023, a written examination held on 8–9 April 2023, and oral interviews conducted on 10–11 April 2023. Appointment orders were issued on 12 April 2023.
However, certain unsuccessful candidates filed complaints alleging malpractices in the viva voce process, particularly regarding the manner in which interviews were conducted. The Collector, Bhandara, directed an inquiry through the Additional Collector, whose report in May 2023 concluded that the interview process lacked fairness and uniformity.
Following this report, termination orders dated 4 July 2023 were issued canceling all appointments. The petitioners approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which on 5 October 2023 set aside the terminations and ordered reinstatement within a month.
Unsuccessful candidates challenged the MAT order before the High Court in earlier writ petitions (Nos. 837 and 846 of 2024), where the matter was remanded to MAT for reconsideration with directions to decide within 90 days. The Tribunal, upon remand, dismissed the original applications on 25 July 2025, holding that the State’s decision to cancel the selection process was justified.
The present writ petitions were filed by the successful candidates, challenging MAT’s decision.
Issues
- Whether the cancellation of the entire selection process for Police Patil posts was justified in light of irregularities during the viva voce stage.
- Whether delegation of powers by senior officers to representatives in the interview committee was permissible under the Government Resolution of 2011.
- Whether the petitioners could challenge the process after participating and being appointed.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the cancellation without considering the petitioners’ service period.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, argued that there were no substantive irregularities warranting the cancellation of the entire recruitment. He contended that the interview committees included all authorized officers, and any representation or delegation of authority did not vitiate the process.
It was further argued that Rule 9(E) of the Maharashtra Village Police Rules, 1967 did not authorize the State to cancel appointments en masse. The petitioners relied on precedents asserting that minor procedural deviations cannot invalidate the entire selection, including Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1995) 3 SCC 486, Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan (2016) 1 SCC 454, and Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna v. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal (2011) 7 SCC.
They further contended that the unsuccessful candidates, having participated in the process, could not later challenge it, invoking the principle of estoppel by participation.
Respondents’ Arguments
Mr. S.Y. Deopujari, counsel for the unsuccessful candidates, supported the cancellation, submitting that the viva voce process was fundamentally flawed. He pointed out that several officers who conducted the interviews were junior representatives, not the designated members under the 2011 Government Resolution, and that marks were awarded arbitrarily, sometimes using stars instead of numerical values.
He argued that uniform evaluation criteria were absent, and interviews were conducted hastily within 1–3 minutes, casting doubt on the integrity of assessment. Moreover, interview recordings lacked audio, and documents showing markings were destroyed as rough work, further vitiating the transparency of the process.
Analysis of the Law
The Bench noted that while the written examination phase was undisputed, irregularities arose exclusively during the oral interview stage. The Government Resolution dated 23 August 2011 mandated a specific composition of the Interview Committee, including the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Chairperson), Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Social Welfare Officer, Tribal Project Officer, and Tahsildar (Member Secretary).
However, none of the designated senior officers were present, and the process was conducted by representatives and subordinate officers. The Court emphasized the non-delegable nature of such duties, observing that administrative convenience cannot override legal compliance.
“When a Government Resolution prescribes that a task must be undertaken by designated officers, delegation to subordinates, however well-intentioned, cannot sanctify an otherwise invalid process.”
The Court held that Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Village Police Rules, 1967, which allows the District Magistrate to delegate administrative powers, does not extend to interview proceedings, which must be conducted personally by the designated officers.
Precedent Analysis
- State of West Bengal v. Baisakhi Bhattacharya (AIR 2025 SC 1882) – The Court cited this landmark case extensively, reiterating that when systematic irregularities taint the integrity of an entire selection process, the entire result must be annulled, even at the cost of individual inconvenience.
- Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1995) 3 SCC 486 – Distinguished on facts; the issue in Madan Lal concerned fairness in awarding marks, whereas here, the composition of the committee and the process itself were defective.
- Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna v. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal (2011) 7 SCC 308 – Applied to reinforce the principle that statutory rules prescribing a selection procedure must be strictly followed.
- Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan (2016) 1 SCC 454 – Distinguished, as the petitioners in this case were unaware of the committee composition, and thus could not have waived objections through participation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found serious procedural lapses:
- Unauthorized delegation of interview powers to subordinates.
- Absence of uniform marking standards, with inconsistent methods (numeric and star-based).
- Interviews completed within 1–3 minutes, questioning their authenticity.
- Destruction of interview sheets labeled as “rough work.”
- Presence of candidate names on interview sheets, violating anonymity norms.
The Bench held that these factors vitiated the fairness and transparency of the process, making it impossible to segregate genuine from tainted candidates.
“When the integrity of the process stands compromised, the Court cannot indulge in selective validation of individual appointments.”
The Bench further rejected the argument that participation estopped the unsuccessful candidates, holding that they were unaware of the irregular constitution of the committee, which came to light only after the inquiry.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the entire selection process was vitiated due to unlawful delegation, lack of uniformity, and opaque evaluation. Upholding the MAT’s order, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the State’s authority to cancel the recruitment to preserve public trust in the process.
However, the Bench extended the interim protection for four weeks to the petitioners to enable them to explore legal remedies.
“Integrity of selection outweighs inconvenience to individuals; purity of process is the cornerstone of public employment.”
Implications
This judgment underscores that fairness in selection processes for public posts cannot be compromised under any pretext. It clarifies that:
- Delegation of interview powers to unauthorized officers is impermissible.
- Non-uniform evaluation methods invalidate the selection.
- Courts will prioritize the purity of the process over individual equities, even when terminations cause hardship.
The ruling serves as a warning to administrative authorities to adhere strictly to prescribed procedures and maintain transparency in recruitment.