In a significant ruling that highlights the human cost of administrative errors, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) Nagpur bench has directed the state government to appoint a candidate to the post of Talathi, six years after a grammatical mistake in an answer key cost him the job.
A Six-Year Battle for Justice
The case revolves around Kiran Gachhe, an applicant from the Scheduled Caste category, who appeared for the talathi recruitment examination in 2019. His hopes were dashed due to a contentious question concerning the Marathi language. The dispute centered on the grammatical gender classification of the common word 'Bagh', which means farm.
Gachhe had answered that the word was 'ubhaylingi' (common gender). Initially, the official answer key reflected this. However, in a later revision, the recruitment authorities changed the correct answer to 'strilingi' (feminine gender). This single alteration proved costly for Gachhe, reducing his final score from 164 to 162 marks.
This marginal drop pushed him from the select list to the waiting list, effectively denying him the appointment. Unwilling to accept this outcome, Gachhe challenged the decision before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, beginning a protracted legal battle.
Expert Opinion Settles the Grammar Debate
To resolve the linguistic dispute definitively, the MAT bench, comprising Justices Vinay Joshi and Nitin Gadre, sought an expert opinion. They referred the matter to the Marathi Department of Mumbai University, a respected authority on the language.
The university's experts examined the question and conclusively stated that Gachhe's original answer was correct. They confirmed that 'Bagh' is indeed 'ubhayalingi' (common gender) in Marathi grammar. This validation meant that the recruitment authorities' revised answer key was erroneous.
Consequently, the tribunal ordered the restoration of Gachhe's original score of 164 marks. With his marks reinstated, he became eligible for selection under the Scheduled Caste category for the talathi post.
Balancing Justice for Two Candidates
The tribunal's ruling carefully balanced the scales of justice for both the wronged candidate and the one who had benefitted from the error in the interim. The bench acknowledged that the mistake had denied a rightful candidate his due opportunity for six years.
However, they also considered the situation of Satish Dangade, the candidate who was appointed based on the flawed answer key. The justices noted that Dangade had likely built his life around this job over the past years—possibly taking loans or getting married—and should not be penalized for an error that was not his fault.
Therefore, the tribunal issued a nuanced order. It directed that Satish Dangade will retain his position. To remedy the injustice to Kiran Gachhe, the state government must appoint him to an available talathi post within three months.
The tribunal clarified that Gachhe's seniority would be fixed immediately below Dangade, but he would not be entitled to any retrospective monetary benefits for the six-year period he was kept out of the job.
This landmark decision from the Nagpur bench underscores the importance of accuracy in competitive examinations and establishes a precedent for rectifying administrative errors that alter citizens' futures.
