- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay HC pulls up Maharashtra government for issuing job recruitment advertisement under Maratha Quota
Days after the Devendra Fadnavis-led Maharashtra government officially gave the Marathas 16% reservation in government jobs and education, the Bombay High Court on December 10 pulled up the state government for issuing a job recruitment advertisement under the Maratha Quota considering the fact that petitions challenging the same are still pending before the court.The Maharashtra Public...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Days after the Devendra Fadnavis-led Maharashtra government officially gave the Marathas 16% reservation in government jobs and education, the Bombay High Court on December 10 pulled up the state government for issuing a job recruitment advertisement under the Maratha Quota considering the fact that petitions challenging the same are still pending before the court.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission’s (MPSC’s) job recruitment advertisement under the Maratha Quota was highlighted to the court by Advocate Gunaratan Sadavarte, who is appearing for the petitioner opposing the Quota. Sadavarte said, "Applications have also been invited under the newly introduced Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) for the Maratha community."
In response, Senior Counsel V A Thorat, appearing for the government, stated that only applications have been invited and that the final examination for the jobs will be held in July 2019. Thorat added, "The entire process of filling up the posts will take more than six months."
Questioning the government as to why it was in such a rush to fill up the positions when it was aware of the fact that petitions challenging the reservation decision were still pending, the court stated that such "irreverent situations" should be avoided and the government should give the courts some "breathing space" to hear the petitions.
The court said, "The government knew that the petitions challenging the legislation would be heard today [December 10]. You (government) could have waited for a few more days to issue the advertisement... This is a serious matter affecting millions of people, both for and against the reservation. In such matters, such irreverent situations should be avoided. The government should give courts also some breathing space to hear the petitions and pass interim orders."
Noting the fact that people will send their applications for the jobs not knowing that the issue was being challenged, the court said, "We do not want youngsters who have sent applications to wait endlessly. There has to be a balanced approach in such matters."
The court thus directed Thorat to take instructions from the government on whether the state would recruit people under the quota pending hearing of the petitions.