Bombay High Court Disallows Maratha Community Candidates To Avail Retrospective Benefits Under EWS Category In MSEDCL Recruitment Drive

The court said that Maratha community candidates (SEBC candidates) were aware that their selection process would be subject to Supreme Court's order in the Maratha Reservation matter.

So once SC's interim order barred them from being considered under the reserved category of MSEBC Act in 2020, the State couldn't have issued a GR permitting eligible candidates to be considered under the EWS reservation.

"EWS category candidates definitely had accrued right to be considered for appointment. In such circumstances, the decision of the State to permit such migration midway through the selection process is arbitrary and unfair," the division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik held.

Consequently, the bench allowed petitions filed by candidates selected under the EWS category against the GR and dismissed pleas by SEBC candidates for recruitment under the EWS category.

Facts of the Case

In 2019, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) issued an advertisement for filling up certain vacancies. There were two categories (EWS and SEBC) for appointments under the reserved category.

Since the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act itself was under challenge, SEBC candidates were informed that their recruitment would be subject to the outcome of the case.

After the constitutional validity of the Act was upheld in the Bombay High Court, the SC in an interim order said that appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without implementing the reservation as provided under the MSEBC Act.

It was at this stage, after the names of selected candidates under each category were released, that the Maharashtra Government issued the government resolution thereby permitting the candidates belonging to the Maratha community to avail the benefit of open category or EWS category as per their eligibility.

Arguments

Candidates of the EWS category contended that State Government's action allowing eligible SEBC category candidates benefits under the EWS category was "completely arbitrary and unconstitutional." Introducing a reservation for SEBC category at such an advanced stage of the recruitment process is impermissible, they said.

The SEBC said the State's decision permitting them to participate in the selection process was an informed decision which should be taken to its logical conclusion. They had a legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment.

Moreover, since there was a condition that the recruitment would be subject to SC's final orders, EWS category candidates could not claim a vested right to be appointed against the existing vacancies.

Observations

In its order, the High Court distinguished the present case from the 2021 judgement of the Supreme Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes vs Union of India and Ors. (OBC Reservation case) wherein as a result of the reservation for OBCs, there was a change in the seat matrix after registration.

The court held that in the present case the EWS category hadn't come later on.

"While we have sympathy for the SEBC candidates, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of their own making. The SEBC candidates were aware about the matter pending before the Supreme Court despite which they took a chance to participate in the recruitment process claiming reservation meant for SEBC," the court held.

Case Title: Vikas Balwant Alase & Ors. V/s. Union of India through Secretary & Ors. with connected matters

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment