RAVI SHRIRANG JADHAV AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:12364-DB




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 1188 OF 2026

                                Ravi Shrirang Jadhav And Others
                                            VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Others

           Mr. M. L. Muthal, Advocate for petitioners
           Mr. A. B. Girase, GP for respondent-State

                                           CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &
                                                   Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.
                                           DATE      : 18th March, 2026

           ORDER (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.):-

           1.           Present petition challenges the proceedings relating to the

           recruitment process for the post of Technician III conducted by the

           Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. (MAHAGENCO)

           pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2024. The petition also challenges the

           results that has been published on 24.10.2025 and the selection

           list/merit list based thereon in so far as they are found to be illegal,

           arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, fairness and

           constitutional mandates. The petitioners further seeks direction to the

           respondent No. 2 to stay, halt or suspend the ongoing recruitment

           process for the post of Technician III and further directions to the

           respondents to immediately publish the complete merit list containing

           original marks and scores of all the candidates who appeared for the




           921-WP-1188-2026.odt                                                  1 of 6
examination. One more challenge that has been raised in the present

petition pertains to the reservation polices, rules and regulations not

been followed by the respondents while proceeding with the selection

process in pursuance of the advertisement No. 04/2024 and according to

the petitioners, the reservation policies, reserve limits are exceeded.



2.          The petitioners states that respondent No. 2 has issued an

advertisement    No.   04/2024    inviting   applications   for   the   post   of

Technician III from the persons belonging to the different categories. The

advertisement was for total 800 posts and as the petitioners were

eligible to participate in the said selection process had submitted their

application forms along with the details of their eligibility criteria. The

online examination was conduced by the institute of Banking personnel

on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the month of May, 2025 i.e., from

08.05.2025 till 10.05.2025 and on 15.05.2025. The results of the

examination was announced on 24.10.2025 and the list of candidates

who were shortlisted were published by the respondents. The shortlisted

candidates were called for document verification and according to the

petitioners, the said process is still ongoing.



3.          It is the case of the petitioners that the result published by

the respondent authorities on 24.10.2025. It suffers from several




921-WP-1188-2026.odt                                                       2 of 6
irregularities in the recruitment process. After the publication of the

result,   the   petitioners   submitted   several   representations   to     the

authorities raising their concerns, grievances and pointing out the

irregularities in the result, but authorities have not taken any of the

representation submitted by the petitioners till date. The petitioners

argues that the regular process that has been adopted by respondent

No. 2 since last seven years while conducting the examinations and

selecting candidates in the selection process, the said process of

publishing separate merit list, select list and then waiting list has not

been followed. Though the advertisement clearly mentions that the

appointments are through direct service recruitment, yet the direct

service recruitment rules have not been followed and they have been

violated by selecting two candidates for one seat in the selection board.

It is the case of the petitioners that even the reservation policy adopted

for the post of woman candidate has been availed by the candidate of

another category and thus, according to the petitioners, is in gross

violation of the rules of reservation. It is further case of the petitioners

that in the impugned advertisement process, there are two groups of the

candidates who have submitted their forms to the Mahanirmit Company

to set up a project, a total 1400 candidates for one to 5 years of training

period and total 400 candidates for 1 to 4 training period and thus, by

giving equal seats for both the groups, the Mahanirmit Advertisement


921-WP-1188-2026.odt                                                       3 of 6
No. 04/2024 has in fact, cause injustice to the project affected

candidates. He further submits that during the previous recruitment,

which were conducted by the respondents since 2010 till 2019, the

groups were never formed in the aforesaid manner and therefore, it is

necessary that the respondents be directed to follow the said recruitment

process even during the advertisement No. 04/2024. The post which

were reserved for the retired Indian Army Solders has also been filled by

the candidates who are not belonging from the army background and

even the general candidates have been considered for the said post. The

petitioners further argues that no publication of the merit list contending

the original marks allotted to the candidates violates the principle of

transparency and amounts to arbitrary and biased decision process which

directly effects the entire selection process. Even the advertisement

procedure which was required to be completed within a period of 45 days

from the date of conducting the examination has been unduly non

complied with and the results have been belatedly declared and

published on 24.10.2025 which is beyond 45 days herein.



4.          We   have   heard   learned   Advocate    appearing   for     the

petitioners and he has reiterated all the grounds that has been prays in

the present petition. We have also perused the documents that has been

placed on record by the petitioners. First and the foremost important fact



921-WP-1188-2026.odt                                                    4 of 6
that is required to be noticed is that the petitioners after participating in

the entire selection process and only after noticing their name does not

appear in the select list have chosen to raise their grievance pertaining

to the process followed by the respondents while executing the

advertisement and also in respect of deficiencies pertaining to the select

list as well as maintaining the reservation in the said advertisement.

Secondly, the select list which has been annexed at Exhibit ‘D’ on Page

No. 50 is the list which publishes the names of the candidates for the

purpose   of   submitting   their   documents    for   verification   without

mentioning any score or marks they have obtained. Thus, the list only

gives description of those candidates who have been chosen for

submitting the document verification. It is not the case of the petitioners

that apart from submitting a representation, they have made any

statutory attempt of submitting an application under the Right to

Information Act to obtain the details of the marks that they have

obtained in the said examination. In absence of this, it cannot be said

that the petitioners approached this Court with bona fide intention of

raising a grievance, despite the fact that they have sufficient marks to be

qualified, yet were ignored or their names were not shown in the list that

has been published on 24.10.2025 by the respondent authorities. The

another ground that has been raised and canvased by the petitioners

pertaining to the reservation being not followed in respect of the woman


921-WP-1188-2026.odt                                                    5 of 6
candidate and the candidates belonging to the ex-serviceman category.

According to us, when the process is only in respect of document

verification which has been now opted by the department, it is too

premature for us to adjudicate that the department will not follow the

reservation    criteria   that   has   been    mentioned   by   them   in    the

advertisement.



5.            Thus, the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere

with the selection process that has been adopted by the respondents.

The petition, therefore, lacks any merit and, hence, stands dismissed. No

orders as to costs.




(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)                     (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

B. S. Joshi




921-WP-1188-2026.odt                                                        6 of 6