Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Kolhapur Bench

Order Date: August 28, 2026 (Reserved on August 20, 2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Pallavi Vijaykumar Shelke Patil (Lecturer, age 35), Ganesh Chandrakant Falle (Executive Merchandising, age 35), Sunil Ramchandra Pakhandi (Service, age 35).
  • Respondents: Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC), Directorate of Technical Education, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Shivaji University, Kolhapur, and Textile and Engineering Institute, Dattajirao Kadam Technical Society, Ichalkaranji.
  • The petition challenged MPSC’s declaration dated 5 July 2018 that terminated the selection process for the post of Lecturer in Dress Designing and Garment Manufacturing (DDGM) advertised on 85/2013.
  • The original advertisement (2013) sought to fill 21 lecturer posts (15 backlog, 4 open category, 1 horizontal reservation for women) requiring a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering/Technology with first class, with equivalence to be assessed per Government Resolution (GR) dated 6 May 2013.
  • Petitioners hold a “Bachelor of Textile Examination in the Branch of Fashion Technology”, a course approved by AICTE.
  • MPSC’s 2018 declaration stated no eligible candidates were found; petitioners filed Original Application No. 52 of 2019 in the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT).
  • MAT’s order (5 Feb 2024) upheld MPSC’s decision; petitioners appealed to the High Court.
  • Respondents submitted affidavits stating that a three‑member committee (constituted by the Director of Technical Education) examined equivalence on 16 August 2017 and concluded the degree was in Textile Technology, not Fashion Technology, thus not equivalent.
  • The committee also noted a revised staffing pattern based on AICTE’s student‑faculty ratio (1:25 from 2016 onward), reducing sanctioned lecturer posts for DDGM to 24, all of which are filled; the earlier pattern (2004) had 42 posts.
  • AICTE notification dated 5 March 2010 requires B.E./B.Tech in the appropriate discipline for polytechnic lecturers; AICTE circular of 10 November 2020 clarifies that AICTE does not grant equivalence, leaving it to the employer.
  • Petitioners argued the 2013 GR provided automatic equivalence and that vacancies existed at the time of advertisement (they claim 18 vacancies), seeking either reinstatement of the process or creation of a super‑numerary post, citing N. T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157.
  • Respondents countered that the GR required a degree in Fashion Technology, which petitioners do not possess, and that there is no vacancy; they also referenced State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash (2026 SCC OnLine SC 879) and other Supreme Court precedents limiting vested rights to appointment.
  • The Court examined extensive case law, notably overturning the earlier Y.V. Rangaiah principle that vacancies must be filled according to the rules in force at the time of vacancy creation. The Court held that the governing rule is the one in force on the date of consideration, citing a series of decisions (e.g., Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., Union of India v. Krishna Kumar).
  • Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the vacancy situation must be assessed as of the date of consideration (2026), not as of 2013, and that the reduction in sanctioned posts and full occupancy negate any entitlement.
  • The Court further held that the issue of degree equivalence is academic because there is no vacancy; creation of a super‑numerary post is not justified.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is dismissed; the rule is discharged. No order to reinstate the recruitment process or to create a super‑numerary post is issued.

Topics: Eligibility, Public Service Recruitment