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 t