Rekha Wasudev Ganjre v. The State of Maharashtra

23.3. Bringing and using the Mobile phones or any types of electronic gadgets in the Examination Hall and within the vicinity of the Examination Centre are strictly prohibited. 23.[4] At the time of verification of the certificates, if any error / false information is found in the certificates or if any certificate is not produced, then the Candidate shall be declared ineligible for further process at that time itself. 23.[5] All Government Resolutions / Notifications / Government Circulars mentioned in the Advertisement are available on the web-site viz. www.maharashtra.gov.in of the Government of Maharashtra. Similarly, the same are also linked to the web-site of “Mahapariksha” Portal. २४. उममदववरवरनव कवहत अडचण भवसलयवस खवलतल कदलमलयव हमलपलवईनवर वमळमत सरपकर सवधववव. अ.क. सरसथव / कवयवरलयवचम नवव दमरधवनत / मजबवईल कमवरक १. ऑनलवईन आवमदन अरर भरणयवस कवहत अडचण असलयवस/पवमश पतवबवबत सवचवरणव करणयवसवठत महवपरतकव पजटरलशत सरबरधतत सरकमतसथळ व दमरधवनत कमवरक enquiry@mahapariksha.gov.in हमलप लवईन १८००३०००७७६६ २. अपर पजलतस महवसरचवलक, पसशकण व खवस पथकम, महवरवष रवजय, ममरबई (कवयवरलयतन वमळमत) ०२२-२२८५५६१४ ३. अपर पजलतस महवसरचवलक, पसशकण व खवस पथकम, महवरवष रवजय, ममरबई. यवरचम e-mail id:adg.trg.office@mahapolice. gov.in ४. पजलतस आयमक, बबहनममरबई कवयवरलय (पजलतस भरतत कक) दमरधवनत कमवरक ०२२-२४१२३१११

24. If the Candidates face any difficulty then, they may contact on the below-mentioned Help-lines, within time. Sr.No. Name of Institution/Office Telephone/Mobile NO. 1. In case of any difficulty in submitting application on-line/For making enquiry about Admit Card, the Web-site and enquiry@mahapariksha.gov. in Helpline: 180030007766 12 of 23 Telephone number pertaining to the MahaPariksha Portal.

2. Additional Director General of Police, Training and Special Teams, Maharashtra State, Mumbai (within Office hours) 022 – 22855614

3. E-mail id of the Additional Director General of Police, Training and Special Teams, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Adg.trg.office@mahapolice. gov.in

4. Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai (Police Recruitment Cell) Telephone NO. 022-24123111

10. The first issue which requires to be considered is whether the Petitioners were put to notice of the Full Bench hearing. In this connection it is relevant to note paragraph 9 of the Full Bench decision which reads thus:

9. Learned counsel Shri Moon has filed M.A. No.12/2023 in O.A. No.144/2022. Learned counsel Shri Moon also caused appearance for 4 candidates, who have been benefited because of the order passed by learned Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.22/2022 with connected O.As. Said applicants though were initially disqualified on the ground of filling in multiple applications for one and the same post, subsequently were considered for their appointment on the strength of the aforesaid order passed in O.A. No.22/2022 with connected O.As. We though did not allow Intervention Application bearing M.A. No.12/2023, we permitted learned counsel Shri. Moon to make the submissions on behalf of the aforesaid applicants. We had directed the learned C.P.O. to ensure that the candidates, who got the benefit of the order passed in Group-I applications and have been accordingly given appointments, shall be noticed that the matter is now being heard by a Larger Bench. On 5.1.2023 learned CPO informed that total 125 candidates got the benefit and all of them are duly noticed. It was the contention of learned counsel Shri Moon that he has instructions from such 4 candidates to appear and argue on their behalf. In the circumstances, we permitted learned counsel Shri Moon to make submissions on behalf of the said applicants who stand at par with the applicants in Group- I applications.

11. It is also important to note that the Joint Commissioner of Police has in his affidavit dated 25th August 2023 on behalf of 13 of 23 Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 stated in paragraph 4 that the Tribunal on 10th January 2023 had put up on the notice board, a notice regarding the hearing of the Full Bench and the issue raised therein. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s direction, notice of the Full Bench hearing was pasted in all the units and the candidates were also served through their respective units and training centres. The notice affixed by the Tribunal dated 6th January 2023 and the notice pasted by Respondent No.2 in all the units have been annexed to the said petition.

12. In view of above, we do not accept the contention of the Petitioners that they were not put to notice about the Full Bench hearing. The affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 clearly states that not only was the notice put up on the notice board of the Tribunal but on the directions of the Tribunal, the notice of the Full Bench hearing was also pasted on the notice board of all the units and the candidates were also served through their respective units. Therefore, in our view the submissions made by the Petitioners on them not being heard by the Full Bench has to be rejected. In any event, the Petitioners have made their submissions before this Court on the merits and therefore the grievance raised would not survive. Even if we propose to remand the Petitioners to the Tribunal insofar as they are concerned, no purpose would be served because the decision of Full Bench would still 14 of 23 be applicable because the Petitioners were not the only parties before the Tribunal but there were other candidates also. The question referred has thereafter been decided by the Tribunal.

13. Now we propose to deal with the issue as to whether a candidate could have made more than one application for the same post in different units and if such a course of action is adopted by the Petitioners then whether their appointments are required to be terminated.

14. The Petitioners in paragraph 4, page 9 of Writ Petition No.13079 of 2023 have stated and admitted that on a reading of clause

11.10 it shows that making an application for one and the same post in more than one unit is not permissible. The Petitioners seek to rely upon clause 11.17 to however contend that only the first successful attempt of login should be considered if registration is sought through more than one login ID. In our view, the Petitioners are not justified in making a submission that there is any ambiguity in various parts of clause 11.10 so as to enable them to make more than one application in different units for the same post. Clause 11.17 that prescribes the effect of having registered for more than one login cannot be read in a manner to defeat what is stated in clause 11.10. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners that the advertisement does not prohibit them from making 15 of 23 more than one application for the same post in different units is to be rejected.

15. Paragraph 2 of clause 11.10 states negatively that more than one application cannot be submitted for one and the same post in one and the same police unit. Third paragraph of the said clause 11.10 again negatively provides expressly that applications for one and the same post cannot be submitted in various police units. The conjoint reading of these two sentences in clause 11.10 in very clear term like Nelson’s eye expressly prohibits the candidate from making more than one application for the same post in more than one police unit. Therefore, if the contention of the Petitioners wherein they have relied upon the definition of “police unit” as per Recruitment Rules is to be accepted, still in the light of the express clause of advertisement, the candidate cannot make more than one application for the same post in more than one police unit. On a reading of clause 11.10 of the advertisement in its entirety, there is not only an express prohibition for making more than one application for the same post in the same unit but also there is a prohibition for making an application for the same post in more than one unit. Therefore, even on pure and plain reading of clause 11.10, the submission made by the Petitioners is to be rejected. In our view, there is no ambiguity of clause 11.10 and, therefore, this 16 of 23 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 of the plain language of the same. This Court cannot adopt interpretative rewriting of clause 11.10 of the advertisement.

16. However, the Petitioners have contended that on a reading of clause 11.17 more than one application can be made and it is the first successfully submitted application which ought to be considered. In our view, this reading of clause 11.17 by the Petitioners is self-contradictory to what they have stated in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition which we have analysed above. Even otherwise, clause 11.17 deals with a situation where a candidate has created more than one login id. In such a case, the said clause provides that successful registration of the first login id would be considered for further process like issuing hall ticket, attendance, merit list etc. and any duplicate registration shall be deemed as illegal registration. The said clause only deals with login id and it has no relation with clause 11.10 so as to construe both these clauses harmoniously in support of the Petitioners. In our view, clause 11.10 and clause 11.17 operate in two different fields, and therefore, clause

11.17 cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioners. It is also important to note that clause 11.17 expressly provides that if any erroneous 17 of 23 information in the first successful registration has been given by the candidate, then to know the appropriate process in that regard, a candidate can either call on the Toll Free Number or write a mail to the email address mentioned therein. The Petitioners have not availed this remedy if at all there was some confusion in the interpretation of clause

11.17. The object of clause 11.17 is only to ensure that only one login id is created by one candidate. The object behind the same is to curb the possibility of creating more than one login id and making multiple applications. The said objective is in consonance with clause 11.10 which expressly prohibits a candidate from submitting more than one application for the same post. Therefore, the harmonious construction of the two clauses is to the extent that a candidate cannot be permitted to make more than one application for the same post qua each district. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners on this count is also required to be rejected.

17. If the Petitioners had any doubt on the interpretation of clause 11.17, they could have approached the helpline as provided in clause 24 for necessary clarification. It is not the case of the Petitioners that they had availed the said clarification. Therefore, even on this count the submission made by the Petitioners cannot be accepted. 18 of 23

18. It is also important to note that around 1,17,000 candidates applied for the post out of which 2,897 candidates have made multiple applications which means 97.5% of the candidates understood correctly that even on a reading of clause 11.17 and 11.10 that only one application could be made. If there was an apparent confusion on the reading of two clauses, then many candidates would have raised the grievance. The fact that almost 97.5% candidates understood the clause correctly, it cannot be said that there was any confusion or ambiguity moreso when the Petitioners themselves have admitted in paragraph 4 of the petition that more than one application could not have been made under clause 11.10. As opined by us earlier, the ambiguity sought to be created by the Petitioners by relying upon clause 11.17 is misconceived.

19. It is also important to note clause 4 of the said advertisement which provides that if any mistake is found in making online application then the candidature would be rejected at any stage of the selection process and the candidate will solely be responsible. This clause also justifies the action of the Respondent-State for disqualifying the candidates and/or for terminating their employment for such reason, which has been approved by the Tribunal.

20. The submissions made by the Petitioners by relying upon advertisements issued for other years are to be rejected. The fact that in 19 of 23 the advertisement before us there is a specific bar mentioned in the last sentence of clause 11.10 which expressly in negative terms prohibits from making more than one application for the same post in various police units, clearly shows that the appointing authority has prohibited such a course of action for the purpose of recruitment to be made by the present advertisement which is posed for our consideration.

21. The Petitioners have relied upon definition of ‘police unit’ under clause 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules, 2019, to contend that there is no prohibition in making more than one application for the same post in different units. In our view, if this interpretation is to be accepted then the last sentence of clause 11.10 which prohibits such a course of action would become redundant. A harmonious reading of the second and third paragraphs of clause 11.10 would mean that a candidate is prohibited from making more than one application for the same post in different units. The Petitioners have also understood the same as evident from the averment made in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition. Clause 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules, 2019 defines ‘police unit’ to mean office of the Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police and the said definition begins with “unless the context requires otherwise”. The said definition does not further classify police unit region-wise whereas in the advertisement dated 30th November 2019, the recruitment is district- 20 of 23 wise/unit-wise. Therefore, when it comes to reading of clause 11.10 of the advertisement under consideration, the interpretation which is required to be given to the phrase ‘unit’ in clause 11.10 would be qua the 36 districts specified in the said advertisement. Therefore, the phrase ‘unit’ has to be read to mean the office of the Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police in each of these 36 districts and if read so then clause 11.10 in its entirety would mean that a candidate applying in one district cannot apply for the same post in another district. Therefore, in our view, the action of the Respondents cannot be faulted.

22. We now propose to deal with the decisions relied upon by the Petitioners.

23. The first decision relied upon by the Petitioners is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Neelima Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.[2] for the proposition that the overruling of a decision subsequently in another case would not mean that the other parties in some other proceedings, which have become final, is binding. In our view, said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case since the Petitioners were put to notice about the issue raised before the Full Bench with respect to the correctness of the decisions of the Tribunal which were in favour of the Petitioners. Furthermore, when it comes to 2 (2021) SCC Online SC 610 21 of 23 mass recruitment from a common advertisement, facts would be different than when it comes to private litigation between two parties which gets overruled in some subsequent decisions between parties subsequently.

24. The second decision relied upon by the Petitioners is the case of State of U.P. Vs. Shashi Joshi[3] for the proposition that if the service is not effected then same is not binding. We have already observed that the Petitioners have been put to notice and some of them intervened and were also heard. Therefore, merely because they were not impleaded, the Petitioners cannot contend that the decision of the Full Bench is not binding.

25. The next decision relied upon by the Petitioners is of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaheer Ahamad Vs. State of Rajasthan[4]. The said decision has been exhaustively dealt with and correctly distinguished by the Full Bench in its decision in paras 61 to

63. In the light of the same, the reliance placed on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court cannot be of any assistance to the Petitioners before us.

26. The next decision relied upon by the Petitioners is in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.[5] for the proposition

22 of 23 that in case of ambiguity and if faced between a choice in which only a few people would be eligible versus a fairly large group, the latter ought to be adopted to have a diverse pool of applicants to promote merit and further provide equal opportunity to the masses. We fail to understand as to how this decision would be applicable to the facts of the present case moreso when the Petitioners before us are mini-scale compared to the candidates who have applied for the advertised post and correctly interpreted clause 11.10, which we have already observed above were 97.5% compared to 2.5% who have made multiple applications. On the contrary, the observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision supports the case of the Respondents rather than that of the Petitioners.

27. In view of above, looked at from any angle, the Writ Petitions are required to be dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petitions, the pending interim application, if any, does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

28. The operation of the present judgment is stayed for a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.]