The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that public recruitment processes must adhere strictly to the terms published in the advertisement. Any post-examination alteration of selection methodology - such as introducing undisclosed weightage - constitutes arbitrary State action, violating the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14. The Court directed the appointment of petitioners who secured higher total marks under the advertised criteria.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. (MSPGCL), Respondent No.2, issued Advertisement No.01/2023 in February 2023 for the posts of Junior Officer (Security) and Junior Officer (Security) (Departmental Watchman candidates) in Pay Group III. The advertisement specified a two-stage selection process: an Online Examination (120 marks) followed by a Physical Efficiency Test and Psychometric Test (40 marks), with total merit determined by the sum of both scores (160 marks). Three posts were reserved for EWS and 14 for the Open category. The petitioners, Yogesh Balkrishna Sarkate (EWS category) and Pratiksha Ashok Narale (Open category), applied under these categories.
Key Facts
- Advertisement No.01/2023 was published on 01.02.2023
- Online examination was conducted in March 2023
- Physical Efficiency Test and Psychometric Test were completed by April 2023
- Total marks awarded: 120 for Online Test, 40 for PET & Psychometric Test (no weightage mentioned)
- Petitioner No.1 (Yogesh Sarkate): 96 (Online) + 37 (PET/Psychometric) = 133/160
- Petitioner No.2 (Pratiksha Narale): 74 (Online) + 34 (PET/Psychometric) = 108/160
- Both petitioners were ranked 20th and 21st respectively in the Open category merit list based on total marks
- On 15.05.2023, MSPGCL issued a revised select list applying 50% weightage to Online Test and 50% to PET/Psychometric Test
- Under this new formula:
- Petitioner No.1: (96×0.5) + (37×0.5) = 48 + 18.5 = 66.5 → scaled to 86.25/100
- Petitioner No.2: (74×0.5) + (34×0.5) = 37 + 17 = 54 → scaled to 73.33/100
- Respondent No.4 (Amit Chalak): 92+40=132 → scaled to 88.33/100
- Respondent No.5 (Sonal Patil): 68+37=105 → scaled to 74.58/100
- Respondent No.6 (Asif Dange): 92+40=132 → scaled to 88.33/100
- Respondent No.7 (Nikhil Wagh): 88+40=128 → scaled to 86.67/100
- Petitioners were dropped to waitlist; Respondents 4 - 7 were selected despite lower total scores
- Petitioners filed representations on 20.05.2023 and 05.06.2023; no response received
- Writ petition filed on 12.07.2023
Procedural History
- 01.02.2023: Advertisement No.01/2023 published
- March 2023: Online examination conducted
- April 2023: Physical Efficiency Test and Psychometric Test completed
- 15.05.2023: Initial merit list published based on total marks (160)
- 15.05.2023: Revised select list issued applying 50-50 weightage
- 20.05.2023: First representation by petitioners to MSPGCL
- 05.06.2023: Second representation
- 12.07.2023: Writ Petition No.15066 of 2023 filed before Bombay High Court
- 17.03.2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Declaration that the application of 50% weightage after examination was illegal
- Setting aside of the revised select list dated 15.05.2023
- Directing respondents to appoint them based on total marks secured under Advertisement No.01/2023
- Costs of litigation
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the respondents could lawfully introduce a 50% weightage system for Online Test and Physical Efficiency Test scores after the completion of examinations, when the advertisement explicitly provided for selection based on total marks without any mention of weightage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Shri P.P. Shahane argued that the recruitment process is governed by the terms of the advertisement, which is a public contract. The advertisement clearly stated that selection would be based on total marks (120 + 40 = 160). The introduction of 50% weightage after the exams were over altered the selection criteria mid-process, violating the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14. He relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (AIR 2024 SC 747) and Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar (2020) 20 SCC 209, where the Supreme Court held that changing selection criteria after candidates have completed their participation is arbitrary and violative of equality. He further cited K. Manjushree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512, which held that minimum qualifying marks cannot be introduced after interviews are over.
For the Respondent
Shri H.S. Adwant contended that the weightage system was not a change in the rules but a method of evaluating merit within the framework of the advertisement. He relied on Clauses 17 and 21 of the advertisement, which permitted the company to prepare the select list based on performance and reserve the right to modify the process. He argued that weightage was applied only after marks were obtained, to assess relative merit, and that this was within the employer’s administrative discretion. He distinguished Chief Manager, PNB v. Anit Kumar Das (2021) 12 SCC 80, where a minimum benchmark was introduced before the exam, and cited Sharad Salunke v. State of Maharashtra (07.02.2025), where candidates were notified in advance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the advertisement in its entirety and found no provision authorizing the application of weightage to the scores. Clause 17 stated that the select list would be prepared by taking into account performance in both tests, but did not specify any scaling or weighting mechanism. The total marks were clearly defined as 160, with no indication that they would be converted into a 100-point scale.
"The marks system allotted in the terms of the advertisement will have to be taken into consideration while considering the selection list. The weightage criteria adopted after the online examination would bring about a change in the selection criteria. It cannot be accepted that such a discretion is available with the respondent authorities."
The Court emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation, rooted in Article 14, protects candidates from arbitrary changes in recruitment rules after they have invested time, effort, and resources in the process. The Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak had held that recruitment begins with the advertisement and ends with appointment, and any alteration during this process undermines fairness.
The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on Clause 21, which permitted modification or cancellation of the advertisement, because such power cannot be used to prejudice candidates who have already completed the process under the advertised terms. The Court observed:
"If we permit the weightage to be applied after the selection list is published, the respondent authorities can completely change the final selection by applying 80% or 90% weightage only to the Physical Efficiency Test. In the instant case, by applying 50% also they are being able to change the final outcome at least to the extent of the present petitioners."
The Court further noted that the weightage system disproportionately benefited candidates with high PET scores but low online scores, thereby altering the merit order without prior notice. This discretion, vested in the State, was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court set aside the revised select list dated 15.05.2023 and directed the respondents to appoint Yogesh Balkrishna Sarkate and Pratiksha Ashok Narale to the posts of Junior Officer (Security) in accordance with the original merit list based on total marks (160 scale). The appointment orders were to be issued within four weeks from the date of judgment. Costs of Rs. 25,000 were awarded to the petitioners.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Selection Criteria Must Be Fixed Before Examination
- Practitioners must challenge any post-examination modification of scoring methodology, even if framed as "evaluation" or "merit assessment"
- Any scaling, weighting, or normalization must be explicitly stated in the advertisement before applications close
- Failure to disclose such criteria renders the selection process void under Article 14
Legitimate Expectation Protects Candidates from Mid-Stream Changes
- Candidates have a legitimate expectation that the rules published in the advertisement will govern the entire process
- Administrative convenience cannot override fairness in public employment
- Courts will not permit State entities to retroactively alter selection parameters to benefit lower-scoring candidates
Advertisement Clauses Cannot Be Used to Justify Arbitrariness
- General clauses permitting modification (e.g., "Company reserves the right") cannot override specific, clear terms on selection methodology
- Such clauses are invalid if used to defeat the rights of candidates who have acted in reliance on the advertised terms
- Courts will interpret ambiguous clauses against the State (contra proferentem)
