1. Selection for public post — Requirement of non-creamy layer certificate by interview date — Submission of certificate one day late — Appointment set aside by tribunal. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1423
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Diksha Babanrao Shirsat - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others - Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5600 of 2022 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-03-2022 in WP No. 1991 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad] ( IA No. 46754 of 2022 - Exemption from filing C/C of The Impugned Judgment, IA No. 70734 of 2022 - Exemption From Filing O.T., IA No. 189007 of 2023 - Exemption From Filing O.T., IA No. 189005/2023 -Permission to File Additional Documents/Facts/Annexures and IA No. 70732 of 2022 - Permission to File Addl.Docs./Facts/Annexures)
Decided on : 08-01-2025
Important Points
The Court held that rigid principles should not be applied to the procedural submission of proof, and minor infractions in submitting certificates should not necessarily result in the rejection of candidature, especially when the candidate is eligible and equity favors them due to long-term service and promotion.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Headnote
(A) Maharashtra Municipal Council, Water Supply, Drainage and Sanitary Engineering Services - Requirement of certificate of non-creamy layer prior to interview - Certificate not possessed by petitioner on interview date led to challenge of her appointment - While the court acknowledges that the petitioner received the certificate post-interview, it references the principle that procedural infraction does not necessarily nullify candidature as supported by Dolly Chhanda case (Para 6).
(B) The court considers special equity as the petitioner had been in service for seven years before the challenge arose (Para 7).
(C) Impugned High Court order from 10-03-2022 is set aside (Para 8). The court allows the petition, emphasizing the merit of the petitioner's situation notwithstanding the procedural lapse.
Result: Petition allowed.
(B) The court considers special equity as the petitioner had been in service for seven years before the challenge arose (Para 7).
(C) Impugned High Court order from 10-03-2022 is set aside (Para 8). The court allows the petition, emphasizing the merit of the petitioner's situation notwithstanding the procedural lapse.
Result: Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends short notice for certificate submission and subsequent promotion; Respondent challenges appointment due to failure to produce certificate on the interview date. (Para 2 , 5 )
3. Short time provided for certificate submission — Certificate produced before result declaration — Petitioner's long service, promotion, and permanent status create special equity. (Para 5 , 7 )
4. Procedural requirements for submitting proof may be relaxed; rigid application of rules regarding submission of documents should not automatically result in rejection of candidature. (Para 6 )
5. Petition allowed — High Court order set aside — Appointment and selection upheld. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Can a candidate's selection be rejected for a slight delay in submitting a required certificate?
Courts may allow relaxation in the submission of proof. Rigid principles should not be applied to procedural matters, and every infraction of rules relating to proof submission does not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. (Para 6 )
7. Does long-term service and promotion affect the court's decision on the validity of an initial appointment?
Yes, the court may consider special equity in favor of a candidate who has already been appointed, promoted, and made permanent in service over a significant period. (Para 5 , 7 )
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, before this Court was a candidate for the post of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Water Supply, Drainage and Sanitary Engineering Services (Class-C) [hereinafter called "the Engineer Class-C], where she was selected and respondent no.5 was not selected. The interview to the said post had taken place on 05.01.2017 where admittedly for a woman candidate irrespective, of the post for which she was competing, and for whom there was a 30 % reservation, a candidate had to submit a certificate showing that she does not belongs to creamy layer and that certificate should be valid up to 31.03.2017. Although, the petitioner at that relevant time had such document to prove that she belongs to a non-creamy layer, but admittedly she was not having such a certificate on the date of her interview. The certificate was only given to her on the next day i.e. on 06.01.2017 when she had applied for it (i.e. on 06.01.2017). Thus, this flaw, that this certificate should have been in her possession on 05.01.2017, came against her, and her appointment was challenged by the respondent no.5 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad, which has allowed the petition/application and set aside the appointment of the petitioner. This was challenged in a writ petition by the petitioner which was dismissed by the High Court and now the petitioner approached this Court.
3. By an interim order, however, the petitioner's selection and appointment were not disturbed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the respondent no.5 at length.
5. The case of the petitioner is that for the subject post for which she got a call letter on 02.01.2017 and she was to submit the certificate of non-creamy layer on 05.01.2017 on which date there was a viva-voice/interview. Admittedly though she belongs to a non-creamy layer category but this certificate was not with her on the date of interview and it was only given by her on 06.01.2017 when she had applied for the same. These are all admitted facts but since the requirement under the advertisement was that this certificate should be with the petitioner on 05.01.2017 when the interview had taken place, and the certificate should be valid for a period upto 31.03.2017, this came against the petitioner. The necessary fact, however, is that admittedly it was very short time given to the petitioner to submit the certificate as the call letter itself was received on 02.01.2017, where the interview itself was on 05.01.2017. In any case she did receive the certificate on the next day on 06.01.2017, prior to the date of the declaration of the result. Moreover, and what is most important for us at this stage is that the petitioner was not only selected and subsequently appointed and has been continuing as the Engineer Class-C. Subsequently, she was also promoted to the next higher post of Engineer Class-B and was made permanent in service.
6. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 5043, where it was held that there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
7. There is also a special equity in favour of the petitioner for the reasons that she has been working now for the last 7 years. We are then inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner and set aside the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court.
8. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
