Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, a Project Affected Person, sought appointment in Group C cadre under the Project Affected Persons category after failing a recruitment examination where she scored 50 marks against the required 90 marks passing criteria. She challenged the Tribunal's order dismissing her application, arguing that Project Affected Persons should have separate passing criteria as treating them equally with open category candidates violates constitutional principles. The High Court examined the Government Resolution providing 5% reservation for Project Affected Persons and the full Bench decision in Rajendra Pandurang Pagare case, which established that such reservation is horizontal and requires competition within the category. The Court held that the existing system of equal passing criteria is constitutionally valid and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
The Petitioner challenged the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing her application seeking appointment under the Project Affected Persons category -- The Petitioner contended that as a Project Affected Person, she should be treated differently from open category candidates and prescribed a separate passing criteria -- The Court examined the Government Resolution dated 27/10/2009 which provides 5% reservation for Project Affected Persons but requires selection through open competition -- The Court referred to the full Bench decision in Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors which held that Project Affected Persons reservation is horizontal reservation requiring competition within the category -- The Court held that prescribing the same passing criteria for Project Affected Persons and open category candidates does not violate constitutional principles -- The Petitioner's contention that treating unequals equally is arbitrary was rejected -- The Writ Petition was dismissed
Issue of Consideration
Whether Project Affected Persons should be treated as a separate category with different passing criteria in government recruitment examinations
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision and finding no merit in petitioner's contentions regarding separate passing criteria for Project Affected Persons
Law Points
- Constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
- Interpretation of Government Resolutions providing reservation for Project Affected Persons
- Horizontal reservation requiring competition within reserved category
- Requirement of merit-based selection through open competition
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 9
Writ Petition No. 10404 of 2019
M.S. Karnik J. , S.M. Modak J.
Mr. Rushikesh G. Bhagat i/b Khandeparkar & Associates, Ms. Reena A. Salunkhe
Smt. Suvarna Bhimaji Thigle
The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary to the Government Revenue Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai, The Secretary, General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Collector of Pune
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging administrative tribunal decision regarding government recruitment
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to appoint her in Group C cadre under Project Affected Persons category with priority
Filing Reason
Petitioner failed recruitment examination scoring 50/200 marks against 90/200 passing criteria and claimed unequal treatment
Previous Decisions
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed petitioner's original application, Full Bench decision in Rajendra Pandurang Pagare case established principles for PAP reservation
Issues
Whether Project Affected Persons should be treated as separate category with different passing criteria in government recruitment
Whether equal treatment of Project Affected Persons with open category candidates violates constitutional principles of equality
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that 5% reservation for PAPs requires different treatment and separate passing criteria
Petitioner contended that equal passing criteria treats unequals equally and is arbitrary
Respondent-State relied on Tribunal findings and existing legal framework
Ratio Decidendi
Project Affected Persons reservation under Government Resolution is horizontal reservation requiring competition within the category -- Equal passing criteria for PAPs and open category candidates does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- PAPs must compete through prescribed recruitment procedures including advertisements, examinations, and merit-based selection
Judgment Excerpts
The GR provides that PAPs cannot be appointed without following the prescribed procedure of issuing of an advertisement, conduct of the examination and merit-wise selection
The quota of 5% fixed for project affected persons is nothing but a horizontal reservation provided for project affected persons and the candidates from that category will have to compete amongst themselves under the recruitment rules and the best amongst them would be entitled to be appointed
Prescribing the same passing criteria for PAPs as well as other candidates from the open category, would amount to treating unequals equally and hence, such a criteria is unreasonable and arbitrary
Procedural History
Petitioner applied for clerk-cum-typist post in 2015 advertisement -- Appeared for examination on 04/10/2015 -- Results declared on 11/03/2016 showing petitioner failed with 50/200 marks -- Filed original application before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal seeking appointment under PAP category -- Tribunal dismissed application -- Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 10404 of 2019 before High Court -- High Court heard arguments on 02/02/2026 and dismissed petition
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 16
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999: Section 14, Section 16
