Name and Date of Judgement: The State of Maharashtra and Ors (Petitioner) v/s Shrikant Dhondu Suttar and Ors (Respondent)
Citation: (2023) WP 8243 of 2019 BHC
Decided on: 15 September 2023

Name of the Judges
The bench is constituted of the following judges:

• Hon'ble Justice Nitin Jamdar
• Hon'ble Justice Smt. Manjusha Deshpande

Bench:
The judgement was delivered by a Division Bench.

Number of Opinions:
There was only one opinion given by the Court.

Type of Opinion
The type of opinion delivered by the bench was unanimous.

Judges Who Delivered the Opinions
The opinion of the judgement was delivered by Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Smt. Manjusha Deshpande. The leading opinion was by Justice Nitin Jamdar . The concurring opinion was by Justice Smt. Manjusha Deshpande.

Concrete Facts of the Judgement
The concrete facts of the case are as follows:

1. The recruitment process for the position of Deputy Education Officer is regulated by the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-B (Administrative Branch) (Gazetted)(Recruitment) Rules, 2016.
2. The term "Deputy Education Officer" refers to the role within the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-B, which includes the positions specified in Schedule A appended to these regulations.
3. District Technical Service Group-C refers to the subset of the District Technical Service that falls under the purview of the Zilla Parishad. This group includes the posts outlined in Part II of Schedule B, as specified in the accompanying regulations.
4. The issuance of a Circular pertaining to the recruitment of Deputy Education Officers was carried out by the School Education and Sports Department of the State of Maharashtra on May 17, 2017. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued a Circular on May 17, 2017, announcing the availability of 92 positions. Subsequently, a departmental competitive examination was organised for August 13, 2017, to choose suitable candidates for these positions.
5. On May 18, 2017, the Deputy Secretary of the Maharashtra Government corresponded with the Commissioner (Education) over the restricted departmental competitive examination. The communication said that only those belonging to the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-C, and District Technical Service, Group-C were deemed qualified to partake in the competitive test. The exclusion of primary school teachers from this competitive examination was underscored.
6. On May 18, 2017, subsequent to a correspondence, the Commissioner of Education issued a written letter to all Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Parishads on May 19, 2017. Following that, the Block Development Officers duly notified the Respondents of their ineligibility to participate in the competitive test. The completion of the application form was required by June 6, 2017, and the examination was conducted on August 13, 2017.
7. The limited departmental competitive examination-2017 (competitive examination) is exclusively open to individuals who belong to the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-C and District Technical Service, Group-C.
8. It was explicitly stated that those employed as teachers in primary schools are ineligible to participate in this competitive test.
9. The individuals referred to as "Respondents" are currently working as teachers at primary schools that fall under the authority of the Zilla Parishad. They have initiated legal proceedings by filing an Original Application No. 634 of 2017 with the Tribunal.
10. The instructors employed in Primary Schools under the jurisdiction of Zilla Parishad are facing difficulties in their ability to partake in the restricted departmental competitive examination of 2017, which is intended for the purpose of appointing Deputy Education Officers.
11. The applicable regulations are the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967,[1] which have been subject to time-to-time amendments.
12. The salary structures for Primary Teachers who hold a bachelor's degree and a degree in education are equivalent to those of Assistant and Secondary School Teachers.
13. Based on the analysis of the Deputy Education Officer (Recruitment) Rules, 2016,[2] it is evident that the selection process for the appointment of a Deputy Education Officer involves a limited departmental competitive examination. This examination is open to individuals currently occupying the position of District Technical Service, Group -C, as specified in Part II of Schedule-B attached to the Deputy Education Officer (Recruitment) Rules, 2016.
14. There exists a differentiation between "District Service" and "District Technical Service," with the latter being a distinct category.

Immaterial Facts of the Judgement
From the Concrete Facts, following are the immaterial facts of the case (1,2,3,4,6,9,10,11,12):

1. The recruitment process for the position of Deputy Education Officer is regulated by the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-B (Administrative Branch) (Gazetted)(Recruitment) Rules, 2016.[3]
2. The term "Deputy Education Officer" refers to the role within the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-B, which includes the positions specified in Schedule A appended to these regulations.
3. District Technical Service Group-C refers to the subset of the District Technical Service that falls under the purview of the Zilla Parishad. This group includes the posts outlined in Part II of Schedule B, as specified in the accompanying regulations.
4. The issuance of a Circular pertaining to the recruitment of Deputy Education Officers was carried out by the School Education and Sports Department of the State of Maharashtra on May 17, 2017. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued a Circular on May 17, 2017, announcing the availability of 92 positions. Subsequently, a departmental competitive examination was organised for August 13, 2017, to choose suitable candidates for these positions.
5. On May 18, 2017, subsequent to a correspondence, the Commissioner of Education issued a written letter to all Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Parishads on May 19, 2017. Following that, the Block Development Officers duly notified the Respondents of their ineligibility to participate in the competitive test. The completion of the application form was required by June 6, 2017, and the examination was conducted on August 13, 2017.
6. The individuals referred to as "Respondents" are currently working as teachers at primary schools that fall under the authority of the Zilla Parishad. They have initiated legal proceedings by filing an Original Application No. 634 of 2017 with the Tribunal.
7. The instructors employed in Primary Schools under the jurisdiction of Zilla Parishad are facing difficulties in their ability to partake in the restricted departmental competitive examination of 2017, which is intended for the purpose of appointing Deputy Education Officers.
8. The applicable regulations are the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967,[4] which have been subject to time-to-time amendments.
9. The salary structures for Primary Teachers who hold a bachelor's degree and a degree in education are equivalent to those of Assistant and Secondary School Teachers.

Material Facts of the Judgement
The following points are the material facts of the case (5,7,8,13,14):

1. On May 18, 2017, the Deputy Secretary of the Maharashtra Government corresponded with the Commissioner (Education) over the restricted departmental competitive examination. The communication said that only those belonging to the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-C, and District Technical Service, Group-C were deemed qualified to partake in the competitive test. The exclusion of primary school teachers from this competitive examination was underscored. (Point 5)
2. The limited departmental competitive examination 2017 (competitive examination) is exclusively open to individuals who belong to the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-C and District Technical Service, Group-C. (Point 7)
3. It was explicitly stated that those employed as teachers in primary schools are ineligible to participate in this competitive test. (Point 8)
4. Based on the analysis of the Deputy Education Officer (Recruitment) Rules, 2016, it is evident that the selection process for the appointment of a Deputy Education Officer involves a limited departmental competitive examination. This examination is open to individuals currently occupying the position of District Technical Service, Group -C, as specified in Part II of Schedule-B attached to the Deputy Education Officer (Recruitment) Rules, 2016.[5] (Point 13)
5. There exists a differentiation between "District Service" and "District Technical Service," with the latter being a distinct category. (Point 14)

Generalization of Material Facts of the Case

1. If the eligibility criteria for the competitive examination, specifically states that only those from certain service groups were qualified, this shall prevail.
2. The rule or condition regarding the eligibility to participate in a test serves as a general restriction for a specific group of people from participating in it.
3. The selection process for the appointment of any officer includes a specific limited departmental competitive examination. This examination shall be accessible to individuals who are presently holding the eligible position to attempt it.
4. When two candidates occupy separate positions with identical salaries, it should not be assumed that eligibility for an examination, based on their respective positions, automatically extends to both individuals. Eligibility criteria may vary, even if the remuneration is equivalent.

Questions of Law involved in the case:

1. Whether the Respondents- Primary Teachers working in the Primary Schools of the Zilla Parishads are entitled to participate in the limited departmental competitive examination of the year 2017 in the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Education Officer, State of Maharashtra?
2. Which is the class of employees serving under the State Government and under the Zilla Parishad who fall within the compass of eligibility as contemplated by Rule 3 of the Deputy Education Officer (Recruitment) Rules, 2016?
3. Whether the exclusion of Primary Teachers by failure to mention 'Primary Teachers having graduation and Bachelor's Degree in Education or equivalent' in education is a conscious omission?

Arguments by the Petitioner:

1. The appellant argued that the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) expressed opposition to the Applications, contending that Primary Teachers are ineligible to participate in the Deputy Education Officer (Recruitment) Rules, 2016[6] test due to they do not belong in the District Technical Service. Furthermore, they argued that this exclusion was a conscious decision.
    
2. The appellant argues that the Honourable Tribunal failed to take into account the amendment made on June 10, 2014, as evidenced by the notification dated June 10, 2014. Therefore, the appellant humbly seeks a reconsideration of the judgement issued on 4.10.2018 in order to include the aforementioned revision in the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (District Service) Recruitment Rules of 1967.[7]
    
3. The Appellant argues that in paragraph 3 of the judgement dated 4.10.2018, the Honourable Tribunal made the following statement: "3. The majority of the Applicants are employed by different Zilla Parishads, while a small number of applicants work for the Government of Maharashtra as Primary Teachers." Upon careful examination of the information pertaining to all the applicants from the organisation, it is evident that none of them hold the position of Primary Teacher within the Government of Maharashtra. This revision is deemed necessary due to the reliance of the operative section of the order in paragraph 35 (B) of the Honourable Tribunal on the aforementioned information.
    
4. The Senior Advocate representing the Petitioners contended that the Tribunal's interpretation of the recruitment regulations for the position of Deputy Education Officer was flawed. The respondents are ineligible to apply for this post as they are affiliated with the District Service, rather than the District Technical Service. The aforementioned categories are clearly distinct, and it is imperative to note that the recruitment guidelines specify that Assistant Teachers should be sourced exclusively from the District Technical Service, rather than from the pool of Primary Teachers.
    
5. The appellant contended that the respondents' employment in District Service Class III, as opposed to District Technical Service Class-C as outlined in the Recruitment Rules of 1967,[8] rendered them ineligible for the role of Deputy Education Officer. Despite any temporary transfers, this distinction remains intact. Furthermore, there have been modifications made to the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules of 1967[9], which have resulted in changes to the requirements and processes for appointment as stated in column 4 of Appendix IV Part I.
    
6. The appellant contended that the Tribunal committed an error by failing to take into account the 2014 Amendment to the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, which explicitly prohibits the transfer of Primary Teachers to the role of Extension Officer. The Amendment effectively eradicates this potentiality. The Respondents, who have been designated as Primary Teachers in Zilla Parishads Primary Schools, are unable to present an opposing argument due to their current employment as Primary Teachers. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by permitting the inclusion of an ineligible class in the recruiting process for Deputy Education Officer, contravening the governing Rules. Hence, it can be argued that the orders issued by the Tribunal are in violation of the law and thus should be invalidated.
    
7. The Appellant contends that the amendment made to the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (District Service) Recruitment Rules in 2014,[10] particularly the amendment in column no. 4, entry (b), invalidates the assertion that Primary Teachers are included in the category of individuals eligible for transfer under certain specified conditions stated in column 4. These conditions are associated with factors such as age and level of expertise.
    
8. The Appellant contends that, as a result of the change amendment on June 10, 2014, it is not permissible to transfer Primary Teachers to the District Technical Service, specifically the Class-III (Educational) Grade-II cadre. The contention put up is that the remarks made by the esteemed Tribunal are incongruent with the provisions of this amendment, as it is argued that Primary Teachers with the requisite qualifications and experience are not deemed qualified for transfer to the position of District Technical Service, Class-III (Educational) Grade-II.

Arguments by the Respondent

1. The senior counsel of the respondents argued that certain individuals were able to successfully submit their application forms, while others encountered difficulties due to the impugned communication. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, it was contended that Primary Teachers with both graduation and education degrees are remunerated on an equivalent wage schedule as Assistant and Secondary School Teachers. The provision of equal compensation in the present recruitment process signifies that Primary Teachers possessing the requisite qualifications are considered on par with Secondary School Teachers/Assistant Teachers. The Respondents argued that the Petitioner-State engaged in unjust discrimination by capriciously dismissing their applications and denying equitable employment opportunities for the Deputy Education Officer position.
    
2. The senior counsel representing the respondents contended that the petitioners are just disputing the order issued in Original Application No. 634 of 2017, despite the fact that the Tribunal resolved all the original applications, including the Review Applications, through a common order. Hence, it is advisable to restrict the scope of the Petitioners' challenge solely to the aforementioned order.
    
3. The senior counsel representing the respondents argues that the submitted reply affidavit provides evidence that the respondents were acknowledged as Assistant Teachers. The acknowledgement of this fact has also been made by the State of Maharashtra. Hence, it is indisputable that the State cannot refute the fact that the Respondents occupied the role of Assistant Teachers. According to a communication dated 18 May 2017, originating from the Deputy Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra and directed to the Commissioner of Education, it is evident that there existed a state of uncertainty among the governing bodies concerning this particular issue.
    
4. The respondents argue that the Petitioners did not previously present the point about the differentiation between Assistant Teachers and Primary Teachers to the Tribunal. Nevertheless, given that the individuals in question are now engaged as Assistant Teachers in a Primary School under the jurisdiction of Zilla Parishads, they possess the necessary qualifications to participate in the restricted departmental competitive test in 2017, with the aim of being appointed as Deputy Education Officers.
    
5. The respondents contended that there has been no distinction made by the State between Assistant Teachers and Primary Teachers. Nevertheless, this assertion, presented for the initial occasion, is factually inaccurate. The petitioners have already articulated this matter in their submission to the Tribunal, placing emphasis on the differentiation between Assistant Teachers, Primary Teachers, District Technical Service, and District Service.

Arguments by Intervener(s)
There was neither an intervener nor an amicus curie in the present case.

Judgement in Personam

Court Ruling on Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967

• The court ruled that the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967[11] effectively establish a distinction between roles within the District Technical Service and the District Service.
• The affiliation of the respondents can be observed as being associated with the District Service (Class III) in their capacity as primary school teachers.
• In contrast, the regulations outlined in Part II of Schedule B of the 2016 Deputy Education Officer (Recruitment) Rules specifically address the District Technical Service, but the District Service is not mentioned.

Court Ruling on Eligibility for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination

• The court ruled that Primary Teachers working in schools under the Zilla Parishads are not qualified to participate in the limited departmental competitive examination for the job of Deputy Education Officer.
• The opposing position presented by the Tribunal is deemed erroneous and warrants dismissal.
• Due to the fact that the respondents do not satisfy the eligibility conditions outlined in the rules, it is not possible to take into account any equities arising from subsequent developments, as these were always susceptible to this challenge.

Court Determination on Primary Teachers in Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967

• The court determined that the Primary Teachers in Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967,[12] belonging to District Service Class III, are separate from Assistant Teachers in District Technical Service Class III and are not included in Part II of Schedule-B.
• Consequently, the Primary Teachers working in schools under the Zilla Parishads do not meet the requirements to participate in the restricted departmental competitive examination for the Deputy Education Officer position.

Ratio Decidendi
A candidate ineligible for an exam cannot arbitrarily be permitted to attempt it. Even if the ineligible candidate has some superficial similarities with an eligible candidate, it cannot be said that she/he is qualified for it.

End-Notes:

1. The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967.
2. The Maharashtra Deputy Education Officer (Recruitment) Rules, 2016.
3. ibid n2.
4. ibid n1.
5. ibid.
6. ibid n2.
7. ibid n1.
8. ibid.
9. ibid.
10. Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (District Service) Recruitment Rules in 2014.
11. ibid n1.
12. ibid.