Bombay High Court
PALLAVI VIJAYKUMAR SHELKE PATIL AND ORSversusTHE SECRETARY STATE OF MAHARASHTRA HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioners have no vested right to appointment and the equivalence issue is rendered academic due to the bona‑fide reduction in cadre.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the Maharashtra Public Service Commission's (MPSC) termination of a 2013 recruitment advertisement for lecturers in Dress Designing and Garment Manufacturing, arguing that their Bachelor of Textile degree (approved by AICTE) was equivalent to the required Fashion Technology qualification under the Government Resolution of 6 May 2013. The High Court examined the three‑member committee report that rejected the equivalence, the subsequent reduction in sanctioned lecturer posts due to revised AICTE student‑faculty ratios, and the legal position on whether vacancies must be filled based on the law at the time of advertisement or at the time of consideration. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that candidates have only a right to be considered under the rules in force at the time of consideration and no vested right to appointment, especially where the State has legitimately decided not to fill vacancies. The Court also found no justification to create supernumerary posts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners' Bachelor of Textile degree satisfies the equivalence requirement of Fashion Technology under the Government Resolution dated 6 May 2013.
- Whether vacancies arising from the 2013 advertisement must be filled based on the law existing at the time of advertisement or the law in force at the time of consideration.
- Whether the State is obligated to create supernumerary posts when no vacancies exist.
- Whether the termination of the advertisement and reduction in sanctioned posts bars the petitioners' claim to appointment.
Subjects
- equivalence of qualifications
- vacancy filling
- supernumerary post
- AICTE approval
- government resolution
- recruitment rules
- vested right
- student‑faculty ratio
- service cadre reduction
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8165-DB
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5314 OF 2024
1) Pallavi Vijaykumar Shelke Patil, ]
Age: 35 yrs, Occu: Lecturere, ]
R/at: Advocate Vijaykumar Shelke, ]
]
Bhagirathi Niwas, Thodga Road,
]
Oppo. Ravindranath Tagore School, ]
Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ]
2) Ganesh Chandrakant Falle, ]
Age: 35 yrs, Occu: Executive Merchandising ]
R/at: Ganeshnagar, Post- Mallewadi, ]
]
Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli
3) Sunil Ramchandra Pakhandi, ]
Age: 35 yrs, Occu: Service, ]
R/at: Nandani Road, Jaysingnagar ]
] ...Petitioners
Jaysingpur, Tal. Shirol, Kolhapur-416101
Versus
1) The Secretary, ]
State of Maharashtra, ]
Higher & Technical Education Department, ]
]
R/at: Dalan No. 441, 4th Floor,
]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2) The Secretary, ]
Maharashtra Public service Commission, ]
R/at: Karyasan no. 5th, 7th & 8th Floor, ]
]
Cooperage, Mumbai-01
3) The Director, ]
Directorate of Technical Education, ]
R/at: Maharashtra State, Mumbai-01, ]
4) The Chairman/ Member Secretary, ]
All India Council for Technical Education, ]
R/at: Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, ]
Patil-SR 1 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
New Delhi-110070 ]
5) The Registrar, ]
Shivaji university, Kolhapur. ]
6) Textile and Engineering Institute, ]
Dattajirao Kadam Technical Education ]
Society, Ichalkaranji. ] ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, Mr. Rahul Patil and Mr. Raufa Shaikh for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Digambar Jadhav i/b Mr. Ashwin Kapadnis for the Respondent No.4 (AICTE).
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Reserved on : August 20, 2026.
Pronounced on : August 28, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per Sharmila U Deshmukh J) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final
disposal.
2. The present Petition impugns the judgment and order dated 5 th
February, 2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for
short, “MAT”) rejecting Original Application No. 52 of 2019 (for short
“O.A”). The O.A. was filed by the present petitioner challenging the
declaration dated 5th July, 2018 issued by Maharashtra Public Service
Commission (for short, “MPSC”) terminating the process of selection
initiated vide advertisement No. 85 of 2013 for the post of Lecturer in
Dress Designing and Garment Manufacturing declaring that none of the
candidate was found to be eligible in view of Government
Patil-SR 2 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
communication dated 8th December, 2017 received by MPSC.
3. In the year 2013, MPSC issued advertisement for the post of
lecturers in the course of Dress and Designing and Garment
Manufacturing. The prescribed qualification was Bachelor’s degree in
engineering/ technology in the relevant branch with first class or
equivalent degree. The advertisement was issued for filling up twenty
one posts, out of which fifteen posts were advertised to fill the backlog,
and out of remaining six posts, four posts were available for open
category including one post of horizontal resolution for women. The
advertisement specified that the equivalence would be considered in
accordance with the Government Resolution (for short “GR”) dated 6th
May, 2013. The Petitioners possess the degree of “Bachelor of Textile
Examination in the Branch of Fashion Technology”. The degree course
completed by the Petitioners is approved by All India Council for
Technical Education (for short, “AICTE”).
4. On 7th January, 2015, MPSC published list of eligible candidates,
and Petitioner No.1 was featured in the list of ineligible candidates. The
Petitioner No.1 filed OA No. 25 of 2015 and the response of the
Respondents was that the disqualification of Petitioner No. 1 was due
to cut off marks, which in turn were based on the markings of ineligible
candidates. MAT by its order dated 23 rd January, 2015 directed
Respondents to either restart the whole process or to consider
Patil-SR 3 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
Petitioner No.1 as eligible candidate.
5. The Director of Technical Education constituted a three member
committee to verify the correctness of equivalence accorded by GR
dated 6th May, 2013, which submitted a report on 16 th August, 2017
distinguishing the course completed by the Petitioners citing the issue
of AICTE approval. The Director of Technical Education forwarded the
report dated 16th August, 2017 to MPSC, which led to declaration dated
5th July, 2018 by MPSC expressing its inability to recommend any
candidate for the post of lecturer in the course of DDGM.
6. Being aggrieved by the declaration dated 5 th July, 2018, the
Petitioner filed OA No. 52 of 2019 in MAT, which passed the impugned
order dated 5th February, 2024. An additional affidavit has been filed by
the Petitioners claiming that the vacancies existing on the date of
advertisement is required to be considered and not the subsequently
changed ratio by AICTE and accordingly, there are 18 vacancies.
7. The stand taken by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in the reply
affidavit in so far as GR dated 6th May, 2013 is concerned, is that the GR
did not intend to grant automatic or blanket equivalence for
recruitment purposes without further verification of the specific
syllabus and course contents by subject experts. As there was request
from MPSC, by letter dated 19th January, 2016, after the publication of
advertisement, to verify the candidates equivalence qualification, a
Patil-SR 4 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
three-member committee was constituted which submitted its detailed
report on 16th August, 2017. The Committee observed that the degree
courses completed by the Petitioners was in Textile Technology,
whereas the requirement under the advertisement was Fashion
Technology, and that the degrees could not be treated as equivalent to
the prescribed qualification of Fashion Technology for the purpose of
recruitment to the post of Lecturer in DDGM. The Affidavit further
states that the staffing pattern in Government Polytechnics is
determined based on the student-faculty ratio, which is revised
periodically, resulting in reduction of total number of sanctioned posts
across all disciplines. The Directorate of Technical Education re-
evaluated the requirement and proposed that only twenty four
lecturer's posts be retained as adequate for the existing student intake,
and presently all twenty four posts are filled, leaving no vacancy in the
cadre of lecturer. The GR of 11 th February, 2025 finalized the revised
staffing pattern.
8. There is an additional affidavit filed by the Joint Director in the
Office of Technical Education, stating that as per AICTE notification
dated 5th March, 2010, the revised service conditions for a Lecturer in
polytechnic require persons with a B.E / B.Tech qualification in the
appropriate branch / discipline. The Petitioner's degree, though
mentions Fashion Technology, it is a bachelor's degree in Textile, and
Patil-SR 5 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
therefore, the Petitioners are not eligible. It is stated that AICTE by
circular dated 10th November, 2020 has clarified that it does not provide
equivalence for qualification, which is left to the employer to decide for
considering suitability for a particular post. It is further stated that as
per the faculty to student ratio, all posts are filled and there is no
vacancy to accommodate the Petitioners.
9. Mr. Narvankar, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit
that the advertisement issued in the year 2013 for the post of Lecturers
for DDGCM prescribed the qualification of bachelor’s degree in
Technology or equivalent as per the GR dated 6 th May, 2013. Pointing
out to the certificates of the Petitioners, he would submit that the
degree is Bachelor of Textiles in the branch of Fashion Technology, and
therefore, meets the prescribed qualification. He would submit that
though, the advertisement made a reference to the GR dated 6 th May,
2013, the ineligibility of the Petitioners was considered on the basis of a
report by a three-member committee dated 16 th August, 2017, which
sought to override the GR dated 6th May, 2013. He submits that without
any subjective assessment of the Petitioner's curriculum, the three
member committee has opined that the Petitioner's education is not
sufficient for teaching DDGM course, and therefore, they are not
qualified for appointment to the posts of lecturer in DDGM course. He
would submit that the report is extremely cryptic and is not based on
Patil-SR 6 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
any comparative assessment of the Petitioner's curriculum.
10. He submits that novel method was invented by the Respondents
of constituting a committee to consider the equivalence. He would
further submit that the Petitioners are teaching the same DDGM course
on a clock-hour basis and points out to the temporary appointment
orders. He would further submit that the notification dated 28 th April,
2017 by AICTE specifically states that the relevant qualifying degrees
should be notified at the time of the advertisement of the post. He
would further point out that the notification provides for the major
discipline of technology to the Textile Engineering with a corresponding
course including Fashion Technology and the relevant nomenclature of
undergraduate degree engineering/technology. He would further
submit that as per the approval process by the AICTE, the approval is
granted for the program of Engineering and Technology with the course
of Fashion Technology. He draws support from the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public
Service Commission1, which directs that in event there is no vacancy,
the State Government to create supernumerary post for appointment
against those post. He submits that assuming that there are no
vacancies, a direction can be given to create a supernumerary post for
appointment of Petitioners, who are qualified to the said appointment.
1 (1990) 3 SCC 157
Patil-SR 7 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
11. Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the GR dated 6 th May,
2013 is part of the advertisement, and it provides that in the course of
DDGM, the equivalent degree is DDGM or Apparel Manufacturing, and
Design or Garment Manufacturing or Fashion Technology. He submits
that the Petitioner is not possessing degree in Fashion Technology, but
is holding Bachelor of Textile degree. He submits that considering the
course required to be taught, the requirement was of a degree in
Fashion Technology. He would submit that even if the report of the
committee is ignored, the Petitioners even otherwise, do not qualify as
they do not hold a degree in Fashion Technology. He would further
submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4597 of 2019 has
held that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for
the employer to decide, and the Court cannot lay down conditions of
eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable
qualification being at par with the essential eligibility by interpretative
rewriting of the advertisement.
12. He submits that the position that exists today is that there is no
vacancy to accommodate the Petitioners, and due to rearrangement of
posts, the sanctioned posts as per previous norms of AICTE have
become excess, and the process to transfer the lecturers working on the
excess post is underway. He submits that the reliance on the
advertisement given by the principals of two Government Polytechnics
Patil-SR 8 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
to teach on clock-hour basis is stopgap arrangement to carry out
teaching work till the regular facilities are not transferred to the
Polytechnic. He submits that no case has been made out for
interference.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
canvassed and have perused the record.
14. The Petition raises a challenge to the order of MAT, which
scrutinised the GR dated 6th May, 2013, and in particular the equivalence
and agreed with the findings of the committee that the Petitioners do
not possess the required equivalence. The advertisement was issued in
the year 2013 for filling up the post of Lecturers in the course of Dress
Designing and Garment Manufacturing (DDGM) amongst others. The
total number of posts notified for DDGM were 21 in number out of
which 15 posts were advertised to fill the backlog and out of balance 6
posts, 4 posts were available in open category including one horizontal
reservation for woman.
15. The advertisement came to be terminated by MPSC vide
declaration dated 5th July, 2018 on the ground that no qualified
candidate was available and hence no recommendation could be made.
The reply Affidavit of Respondent Nos.1 and 3 assumes significance and
states about the position of vacancies having undergone a change with
passage of time. The Affidavit sets out the staffing pattern which is
Patil-SR 9 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
determined based on the student-faculty ratio prescribed by the AICTE
from time to time. For the year 2016 onwards, the student-faculty ratio
is determined at 1:25. Resultantly, for the DDGM course, only 24
Lecturer’s posts are retained as adequate for the existing student
intake. It is stated that all posts are presently filled, leaving no vacancy.
The affidavit sets out the comparative position in paragraph 5.5 as
under:
Year/ Student Sanctioned Vacant
Posts filled Remarks
Pattern Faculty ratio Posts Posts
Earlier pattern
2004 Pattern 1:15 42 24 18
superseded
Approved by GR
2025 1:25 24 24 Nil
11.02.2025
16. By the advertisement of 2013, 21 posts were advertised out of
which 15 were to fill the backlog. By virtue of reduction in staffing
pattern, the sanctioned posts of lecturers have been reduced to 24,
which as per the earlier staffing pattern of 2004, were 42. To meet the
reduction in sanctioned posts, Mr. Narvankar would contend that the he
vacancies existing as on the date of advertisement are required to be
considered. The position of law states that the vacancies must be filled
up on the basis of law which exists as on the date consideration takes
place. In State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash 2, the Hon’ble Apex
Court noted the decision of State of HP v. Raj Kumar3 which had held in
2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 879.
3 (2023) 3 SCC 773,
Patil-SR 10 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
paragraph 83 as under:
“82. A review of the fifteen cases that have
distinguished Rangaiah [Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC
284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382] would demonstrate that this Court has been
consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated
in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing
on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under:
82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be
necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when
they arose, Rangaiah case must be understood in the context of the rules
involved therein. [Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725, para
26; Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 319, para 10].
82.2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right
to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the “rule
in force” as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be
considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the
eligible candidates. [Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., Union of
India v. Krishna Kumar].
82.3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision
not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules.
The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for
promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy
decision taken by the Government. [K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao, (1997)
3 SCC 59, paras 12 & 13; Shyama Charan Dash v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4
SCC 218, para 9; State of Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal, (2007) 10 SCC
402, para 38; Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725, para
28]. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as
per the old Rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for
efficient working of the unit. [G. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of
India, (1999) 8 SCC 455, para 4]. The only requirement is that the policy
decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be
justified on the touchstone of Article 14. [Rajasthan Public Service
Commission v. Chanan Ram, (1998) 4 SCC 202, para 15; K. Ramulu v. S.
Suryaprakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59, para 15].
82.4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because
posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to
fill up the posts immediately. [Delhi Judicial Services Assn. v. Delhi High
Court, (2001) 5 SCC 145, para 5].
82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider
appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the
State cannot be directed to consider the cases [Deepak Agarwal v. State of
U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 725, para 25].
83. The above-referred observations made in the fifteen decisions
Patil-SR 11 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
that have distinguished Rangaiah case demonstrate that the wide
principle enunciated therein is substantially watered-down. Almost all the
decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of
universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be
filled on the basis of law that existed on the date when they arose. This
only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case.
84. The decision in Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. is a complete
departure from the principle in Rangaiah inasmuch as the Court has held
that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing
rule. That is the rule in force on the date the consideration takes place.
This enunciation is followed in many subsequent decisions including that
of Union of India v. Krishna Kumar [Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, (2019) 4
SCC 319]. In fact, in Krishna Kumar Court held that there is only a “right to
be considered for promotion in accordance with rules which prevail on the
date on which consideration for promotion takes place”.
85. The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah
case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the
declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the
effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which
existed on the date on which they arose, compels us to conclude that the
decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no
declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent
and this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as
we have indicated hereinabove. For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore,
necessary for us to hold:
85.1. The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah that, “the vacancies which occurred
prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by
the amended Rules”, does not reflect the correct proposition of law
governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of
the Constitution. It is hereby overruled.
85.2. The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the
States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services.
17. Applying the principles analogous thereto, as the law which
existed on the date of consideration is the governing factor, the vacancy
position that exists on the date of eligibility is to be considered. In the
present case, the advertisement is of the year 2013 and for the posts of
lecturers. Considering the lapse of almost thirteen years, the
Patil-SR 12 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
proposition that vacancies must be filled up by taking into consideration
the position on date of advertisement, must be necessarily negatived.
18. After termination of the advertisement by MPSC, there was no re-
advertisement and no filling of posts. The decision taken by the
Respondents not to fill up the advertised posts cannot be questioned.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash
(supra) has held in paragraph 15 as under:
“15. This Court has observed that an employee does not have
a vested right to be promoted nor does he possess a
legitimate expectation to be promoted (See Haryana SEB vs
Gulshan Lal 2009 112 SCC 231). The limited right that an
employee can legitimately claim is for consideration of his
candidature. However, should be government, being the
appointing authority choose, in its wisdom, to not fill up
vacancies by promotion, especially when there is change of
cadre and restructuring of posts, it cannot be compelled to
carry out the appointments.”
19. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India4, the Constitution Bench
was considering the issue whether a candidate whose name appears in
merit list acquires indefeasible right to appointment if vacancy
exists.The Hon’ble Apex Court held in paragraph 7 as under:
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies
are notified for appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an
indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be
legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to a invitation to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment and on selection they do not acquire any right to
the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the
State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the
vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the
license to act in an arbitrary manner. Th decision not to fill up
4 (1991) 3 SCC 47.
Patil-SR 13 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the
State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has
been consistently followed by this Court and we do not find
any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana vs
Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v State of Haryana
or Jatendra Kumar vs State of Punjab.”
20. It further noted in paragraph 8 the decision in State of Haryana
vs Subash Chander Marwaha5, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has
expressly ruled that existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to
a selected candidate and that candidates did not acquire any right
merely by applying for selection or even after selection.
21. The enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court would negate
the vested right claimed by the Petitioners to be appointed on the posts
advertised. It is open for the Respondents not to fill up the vacancies for
valid reason and in the present case, the advertisement came to be
terminated and there is no re-advertisement by Respondents for filling
up the posts. With the passage of time, there has been subsequent
reduction of cadre strength by application of revised student-faculty
ratio and resultantly there is a bona fide decision not to fill up the
advertised post. The staffing pattern is determined on the basis of the
student faculty ration which is prescribed by AICTE. There is no
submission canvassed to dispute the determination as arbitrary. The
5 (1974) 3 SCC 220.
Patil-SR 14 of 15
WP 5314-24 (J).doc
Petitioners cannot insist on vested right to the advertised post despite
the reduction of sanctioned posts of lecturers.
22. As there is bona fide reduction of cadre and no vacancy in the
posts of sanctioned lecturers for DDGM course, the entire issue of
whether the Petitioners’ qualification satisfies the equivalence test
under the GR of 6th May, 2013 has been rendered academic. In so far as
the appointment on supernumerary posts is concerned, the same is an
exception rather than rule. Considering the reduction in cadre, we do
not find any exceptional necessity to compel creation of supernumerary
post. The decision of N.T. Devin Katti (supra) does not assist the case of
the Petitioners.
23. In light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to entertain
the present Petition. The issue as regards the equivalence qualification
is an issue left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Resultantly,
Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR 15 of 15
Checking your session…