1 903.wp.4975.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4975 OF 2025 Sudhir S/o. Eknath Rajguru .Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr S. M. Bhagde, Advocate for the petitioner/s Ms T. H. Khan, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : 22 nd SEPTEMBER , 2026 . Heard. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering, approached to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur raising a grievance that the required qualification prescribed in the recruitment process for the post of ‘Planning Assistant’ is Diploma in Civil Engineer whereas the respondents have allowed Degree holders alongwith Diploma holders in the recruitment of ‘Planning Assistant’. 3. The learned Tribunal after considering the grievance of the petitioner and the stand taken by the Government by filing reply, recorded its finding and dismissed the original application vide impugned judgment dated 04/04/2025. The relevant paras of the impugned judgment read thus: 2026:BHC-NAG:12529-DB 2 903.wp.4975.2025.odt “7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No.400/2012 in Chandralekha Trivedi VS State of Rajasthan, vide order dated 12/01/2012 has held that: “ the word 'equivalent must be given a reasonable meaning i.e. there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement-Appellant shall be considered reasonably and provisional appointment given to her should not be cancelled." 8. The Tribunal in Principal Bench at Mumbai in O.A. No. 667/2019 in the case of R.L. Tayade Vs State of Maharashtra vide order dated 23/11/2021 has held that: “ It is hereby made clear that higher qualification possessed by Applicant should not come in his way since his higher qualification presupposes acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post." 9. The second objection is that, the Respondent No.2 & 3 are following provisions of the Government Resolution dated 27/06/2008 while selecting the candidates for the post of Planning Assistant, a Non-Gazetted Group-B post. According to the applicant, this Government Resolution is for Group-C only. Therefore, the requirement of securing minimum 45% marks to qualify, as per provisions of this G.R., in the written examination for Planning Assistants is not correct. This argument is not valid as it is very clearly mentioned in this G.R. at Clause 9 that the same G.R. is applicable to the recruitment of Group-B (Non-gazetted) posts also. The Planning Assistant post is in this category. 10. The Applicant participated in the recruitment process but obtained less than 45% marks. In O.A. 696/2023 and O.A. 697/2023 vide order dated 10.09.2024, the Aurangabad Bench of this Tribunal has granted relief in marks to the candidates belonging to the Backward 3 903.wp.4975.2025.odt classes in a matter. The applicant desires a similar relief. But, this fact cannot be denied that the Applicant has challenged the entire process after completion of the recruitment process and after realizing that he has obtained less than qualifying marks. Also, the issue of giving special relaxation in marks to the Diploma holders does not arise as there is nothing on record to establish that the reservation policy was not followed in this recruitment. Also, the relevant G.R dated 27.06.2008 does not suggest relaxation in cut off marks for the backward class candidates. Neither, it is possible to introduce such relaxation in this recruitment after the entire process is over. 11. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in O.A. No. 136/2012 in the case of Pramod Dorkar Vs State of Maharashtra vide order dated 20/10/2021 has held that: “ Basically, the applicant who is unsuccessfully even securing cut-off marks had no locus on merit, so the argument, that the standard of the cut-off marks was increased due to degree holders and so the applicant was excluded is baseless." 12. The applicant has tried to challenge the recruitment process based on the three issues mentioned in Paragraph 2. The process started vide an Advertisement in the year 2018 has already been completed and the successful candidates have already joined. The Applicant had participated in the process but could not obtain the minimum qualifying marks of 45% and therefore was rejected. He secured 80 marks, whereas the minimum requirement is of 45%, which are 90 marks. Inclusion or non-inclusion of degree holders cannot change this outcome for the Applicant. We therefore find no reason to interfere in the recruitment at this stage and pass the following order. ORDER (i) O. A. Stands dismissed. All pending C.As. also stand disposed. 4 903.wp.4975.2025.odt (ii) No order as to costs. ” 4. Having gone through the above referred observations of the Tribunal and considering the fact that since the minimum qualification was Diploma in Civil Engineering, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not considered the candidates holding qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that alongwith the Diploma holders the candidates having higher qualifications were considered. The Tribunal has dealt with the said issue and has observed that such thing is permissible. 6. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no perversity committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Tribunal has observed that the selection process was completed in the year 2018 and successful candidates have already joined the service. 7. In that view of the matter, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. No costs. [RAJNISH R. VYAS, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2026 18:13:53