Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni - Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Public Service Commission – Respondent
Civil Appeal No (S). 1982 of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 25347 of 2023]
Decided On : 29-01-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhijeet Pawar, Adv. Mr. Praveen B. Kamble, Adv. Mr. Lalit Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sashank Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Garv Singh, Adv. Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Female reservation – Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) – Appellant cannot be unfairly deprived of benefit of female reservation merely on account of Appellant’s honesty and restraint which did not allow her to mark ‘yes’ against a column inquiring about a prospective candidates’ status as a person belonging to NCL, in absence of underlying supporting document.
Headnote:
Service Law – Appointment – Female reservation – Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) – In absence of requisite documents evidencing status as a person belonging to NCL under Impugned Advertisement read with Circular, a valid NCL Certificate as on date of submission of application form, Appellant did not mark ‘yes’ against specific question pertaining to her status as a person belonging to NCL – Appellant is bona-fide – Appellant cannot be unfairly deprived of benefit of female reservation merely on account of Appellant’s honesty and restraint which did not allow her to mark ‘yes’ against a column inquiring about a prospective candidates’ status as a person belonging to NCL, in absence of underlying supporting document – Additionally, other similarly situated candidates have been granted benefit under Corrigendum; and their otherwise defective applications have now been considered by Respondent – High Court adopted a hypertechnical interpretation of Instructions without appreciating that such an interpretation would nullify effect of Corrigendum – Impugned Order and Underlying Order set aside – Appellant is a meritorious candidate who has cleared main examination under ‘Open General Category’ despite being deserving of benefit of female reservation, Court inclined to balance equities and do justice by exercising our power under Article 142 of Constitution of India – Respondent directed to forthwith treat Appellant as a candidate under ‘Reserved Female Category’. (Paras 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Decision of Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay wherein High dismissed Writ Petition No. 9040 of 2023; and consequently, granted imprimatur to decision of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 07.07.2023 in Original Application No. 396 of 2023 is assailed here.
Findings of Court:
It is on account of Corrigendum that certain relaxations have been awarded to all person(s) however, on account of an overly restrictive interpretation of (i) Corrigendum; and (ii) Instructions, benefit(s) under Corrigendum are being selectively restricted by Respondent.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (the “High Court”) wherein the High dismissed Writ Petition No. 9040 of 2023; and consequently, granted imprimatur to the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (the “MAT”) dated 07.07.2023 in Original Application No. 396 of 2023 (the “OA”) is assailed before us (the “Impugned Order”).
3. An advertisement was issued by the Respondent on 11.05.2022 in relation to the State Services Preliminary Examination for the recruitment of person(s) to the gazetted post of ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B’ officers under the Government of Maharashtra (the “Impugned Advertisement”). Pertinently, Paragraph 5.5 of the Impugned Advertisement contemplated the benefit of inter alia female reservation subject to certain prerequisites which included (i) that the candidate must be a domicile of Maharashtra; and (ii) that the candidate must belong to the Non-Creamy Layer (“NCL”).
4. Furthermore, under Paragraph 5.10 read with Paragraph 5.14 of the Impugned Advertisement, a candidate seeking to avail inter alia female reservation must not only clearly state that he/she is domiciled in Maharashtra but should also submit an NCL Certificate issued by the competent authority which must be valid as on the last date of submission of the application form i.e., 01.06.2022.
5. In the aforesaid context, the Appellant i.e., a candidate employed as State Tax Officer in the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) Department, Nodal 3, Pune, Maharashtra submitted her application for the aforesaid examination under the ‘Open General Category’ on account of her inability to produce a valid NCL Certificate as on the last date of submission of the application form. However admittedly, and undoubtedly the Appellant was otherwise eligible to apply under ‘Reserved Female Category’ qua the underlying examination being conducted pursuant to the Impugned Advertisement.
6. Thereafter, the Appellant cleared the preliminary examination and qualified for the main examination. Subsequently, on 11.10.2023, the Appellant cleared the main examination from the ‘Open General Category’.
7. However, in the interregnum, on 17.02.2023, the Department of Other Backward Bahujan Welfare issued a corrigendum (the “Corrigendum”) amending Clause 2 (iii) of a circular bearing number CBC-2012/P.No.182/Vijabhaj-1, dated 25.03.2013 issued by Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Government of Maharashtra whereunder (i) the procedure of obtaining; and (ii) validity of inter alia NCL Certificates’ were regulated (the “Circular”). Pertinently, the Corrigendum enabled candidates to submit an NCL Certificate which would have been valid in the current financial year as against an NCL Certificate which had to have been valid as on the last date of submission of the application form i.e., 01.06.2022.
8. In light of the changed circumstances following the issuance of the Corrigendum as more particularly delineated above, the Appellant, who had otherwise been eligible to apply under the ‘Reserved Female Category’ but for mandatory requirement of a valid NCL Certificate as on 01.06.2022, subsequently obtained an NCL Certificate on 09.03.2023. Thereafter, the Appellant made a representation to the Respondent to consider her candidature as a ‘Reserved Female Category’ candidate.
9. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of her representation, the Appellant preferred the OA before the MAT. Vide an order dated 07.07.2023, the MAT dismissed the OA observing inter alia that the Appellant was not in possession of an NCL Certificate prior to the issuance of the Corrigendum (the “Underlying Order”). Aggrieved by the Underlying Order, the Appellant herein preferred a writ petition before the High Court. Vide the Impugned Order, the writ petition came to be dismissed. The operative paragraph of the Impugned Order is reproduced below:
“6. Therefore, after hearing both the side and considering the conspectus of the
