Dr. Yuvraj S/O. Dnyanoba Kolhe Vs State Of Maharashtra

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 787 words

Ajit B. Kadethankar, J

The petitioner is desirous to undergo the selection process conducted by the respondent no.2 - Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) for the post falling in the Civil Surgeon Cadre of Maharashtra Medical and Health Services (Group - A). The selection procedure is being conducted as per the Advertisement No.011 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025.

Mr.V.Y.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the requisite experience criteria as laid down by the respondent -MPSC for the subject-matter post is mentioned in Clause 9.2 of the advertisement, which reads thus:-

à¥¯.à¥¨ à¤...à¤¨à¥à¤à¤µà¤ƒ

(à¥§) Possess experience of working in hospital of not less than five years out of which minimum three years experience of working in any hospital having minimum capacity of 30 beds gained after acquiring qualification mentioned in 9.1 (1) and (2) above.

The contention of Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Specialist Medical Officer and Head of Department, General Surgery, in Yashwant Hospital and Criticare, Surgical and Maternity Home, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. He would submit that the said hospital qualifies the condition of having minimum capacity of 30 beds, as mentioned in Clause 9.2(1) of the the advertisement. That, the petitioner submitted the experience certificate issued by the said hospital which is at page 26 of the Writ Petition compilation. However, in the list of the non- eligible candidates published by respondent - MPSC on 15.05.2026, the petitioner's name was enlisted at serial no.12 for the reason that the experience in the Yashwant Hospital for the post of Consultant is not valid and hence, the petitioner was not held to be eligible for being considered in the selection procedure.

Mr.Patil, learned counsel further submits that in fact, the petitioner is working in the said hospital on regular basis on the post of Specialist Medical Officer and Head of Department of General Surgery. He submits that inadvertently, the word "Consultant" was mentioned in the experience certificate. He further submits that at the bottom of the list published by MPSC on 15.05.2026 containing the names of the non-eligible candidates, it was mentioned that the candidates who were held to be not eligible could file their representation/ explanation within a period of seven days on the official Mail-id of MPSC. Mr.Patil further submits that immediately on 21.05.2026, the petitioner submitted a representation to the MPSC thereby clarifying that mention of the word "Consultant" in the experience certificate was due to oversight or a technical error and that the corrected experience certificate issued by his employer was attached with his representation.

Mr. Patil invites my attention to page 40 of the Writ Petition compilation, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was working as a Specialist Medical Officer in the Department of General Surgery and Head of Department from 17.09.2017. He submits that despite of this representation, the MPSC published the list of eligible candidates, which does not include the name of the petitioner.

Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the petitioner has given his satisfactory explanation, the respondent - MPSC ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of hearing to clarify the things. Mr.Patil was at pains to submit that even the petitioner is unable to understand as to whether the MPSC has considered his representation/ explanation mindfully, for the reason that no separate communication is issued to him nor any remark is passed in the list of eligible candidates published by MPSC. He submits that the MPSC has scheduled the interviews on 18.06.2026.

In view of the above, issue notice to the respondents.

Learned AGP waives notice for respondent no.1. The petitioner may serve respondent no.2 privately by a permissible mode of private service. The petitioner may serve a copy of this petition to the Advocate who represents the respondent-MPSC. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the Petitioner has efficacious statutory remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The issue is kept open.

Stand over to 11.06.2026 at 02.30 p.m.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader is requested to intimate this order to the respondent no.2 - Maharashtra Public Service Commission.

Dr. Yuvraj S/O. Dnyanoba Kolhe vs State Of Maharashtra

Judgment