Court Cannot Interpret Conditions Of Advertisement Contrary To Plain Language Of The Same: Bombay High Court

Background Facts

The State of Maharashtra (Respondent) issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of District Police Constable Driver in 2019. The Respondent received 117,000 applications for the post out of which, 2,897 candidates submitted multiple applications using different mobile numbers, Email IDs, Aadhaar Numbers, etc. These applicants were disqualified by the Respondent on the ground that the advertisement specifically provided that one candidate cannot make more than one application for the same post in various districts. The Full Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) upheld their disqualification for violation of Clause 11.10 of the Advertisement and thus, the writ petition was filed.

Clause 11.10 of the Advertisement provided that “More than one applications cannot be submitted for one and the same post in one and the same Police Unit………Applications for one and the same post cannot be submitted in various Police Units”

Clause 11.17 of the Advertisement provided that “If any candidate has made registration with more than one Log-In ID, then the first successful registration of the candidates shall be taken into consideration only for further process like Hall Ticket, Attendance at the examination, Merit List and other concerned processes”

It was contended by the Petitioners that Clause 11.17 of the of the Advertisement provides that if 2 Email-IDs are provided then the one which is registered first would be considered for all purposes of recruitment. This showed that more than one application is permissible. Further, Clause 11.10 of the Advertisement doesn't explicitly prohibit a candidate from applying to different districts since the recruitment is with respect to each district. They submitted that on a harmonious reading of Clause 11.10 with Clause 11.17, the restriction is that a candidate for the same district cannot apply for the same post more than once.

However, the Respondent and successful candidates contended that the Petitioners have violated the condition specified in Clause 11.10 by making multiple applications for the same post in different districts. The Respondent submitted that clauses 11.10 and 11.17 operate in different fields and same cannot be construed harmoniously, but are to be construed independently. They further argued that if a candidate has violated Clause 11.10 by making multiple applications, such candidates have played fraud and are not fit for being considered for the post.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that Clause 11.10 provides that expressly prohibits submission of more than one application for one post in one and the same Police Unit. The Clause clearly provided that a candidate can make only one application for each of the advertised post and he cannot make more than one application for the same post. The court observed that the drafting of clause 11.10 was very clear and no confusion appeared in the drafting of the same.

The court further observed that the candidates had changed their profiles while applying in more than one district by giving different mobile numbers, Email-IDs, changing spelling of names of their fathers, etc. If the Petitioners understood Clause 10.11 to mean that they were entitled to make more than one application for the same post in different districts, then there was no reason for them to change their profile while making such applications in different districts. Thus the conduct of the Petitioners puts a question on their intention while making the application.

The court further observed that under Clause 11.10, there was not only an express prohibition for making more than one application for the same post in the same unit, but also a prohibition for making an application for the same post in more than one unit. The court thus held that:

“There is no ambiguity of clause 11.10 and, therefore, this Court in the garb of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.”

The court also remarked that Clause 11.17 deals with a situation where a candidate has created more than one login ID. The said clause only dealt with login IDs and had no relation to Clause 11.10. Thus since Clause 11.10 and Clause 11.17 of the Advertisement operated in 2 different fields. The harmonious construction of the two clauses is only to an extent that a candidate cannot be permitted to make more than one application for the same post in each district.

The court also remarked that Clause 14.4 of the Advertisement provided that if a candidate is found to have submitted false information, then his name shall be removed from the selection process without prior notice. Thus the conduct of the Petitioners involving giving of different Email IDs, different cell numbers, changing the profile names of the father, etc entitled the Respondent to reject a candidate from the selection process

With the aforesaid observation, the court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.

Case No.- CWP No. 7650 of 2023

Case Name- Ashok Mallinath Halsangi & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors

Counsel for Petitioners- Mr. Sandeep Dere a/w Ms. Arati Patil Dere & Ms. Sonali Pawar and Ms. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate i/by. Mr. Kartikeya Bahadhur, Mr. Sangram Chinnappa & Mr. Kaustubh Gidh And Mr. S. S. Thombare a/w Ms. Sakshi Thombare

Counsel for Respondents- Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. GP a/w Ms. T. N. Bhatia And, Mr. Dinesh B. Khaire a/w Ms. Purva Pradhan And Mr. S. B. Talekar a/w. Mr. Madhavi Ayyappan, Mr. Shubham Gurav i/by. Talekar & Associates And Mr. Pranav Avhad a/w Ms. Darshna Naval and Mr. Yashasvi Pandey And Mr. Abhijeet Desai a/w. Mr. Karan Gajara, Ms. Sanchita Sontakke, Mr. Vijay Singh, Ms. Daksha Punghera & Mr. Digvijay Kachare And

Click Here To Read/Download Order