Adherence to eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement, prohibition on considering any document not mentioned in the online application form, and consequences of providing false information in the form are crucial in determining the eligibility of candidates for the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mrs. Gour and learned advocate Mr. Nimbalkar waive service. At their joint request the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner assails order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 813 of 2015, which was instituted by respondent no. 4 herein challenging selection as well as appointment of the petitioner to the post of Talathi and seeking her own appointment in NT-C Female Category. By order dated 22.04.2019, the learned Tribunal was pleased to allow the original application and quashed and set aside selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Talathi. The Tribunal further directed appointment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Talathi in the category of NT-C Female.

3. When the petition came up on 03.05.2019, this Court passed order directing position as on the date to be maintained till the next date. The interim protection has been continued from time to time and due to interim protection the petitioner continues to work on the post of Talathi till date.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows:

An advertisement was published by respondent no. 2 on 23.06.2015 for filling up inter-alia the post of Talathi. Total 40 posts of Talathi were advertised divided into various categories and it appears that one of the posts was reserved for NT-C Female category. Both, petitioner and respondent no. 4 applied in pursuance of the advertisement.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to NT-C category and as per the requirement of the advertisement, she was in possession of Non Creamy Layer status certificate bearing no. 7586 issued on 26.06.2013, which was valid upto 31.03.2015 and accordingly she stated the number of the certificate in the online application form. Even though the certificate was valid upto 31.03.2015, the petitioner stated in her online application form that it was valid upto 31.03.2016. Since the advertisement required Non Creamy Layer Certificate issued after 01.03.2015, it appears that the petitioner procured a fresh Non Creamy Layer status Certificate dated 17.07.2015 which was valid upto 31.03.2018.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not supposed to upload any certificate along with her online application form and that mere possession of the certificate was sufficient. The petitioner further submits that as on the date of document verification she was in possession of the fresh certificate issued on 17.07.2015, which she produced during the process of document verification. In the select list that was prepared, the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1 amongst NT-C Female Category, whereas respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Talathi vide appointment order dated 01.12.2015 and she joined the post on 02.12.2015.

7. The selection and appointment of the petitioner was questioned by respondent no. 4 by instituting Original Application No. 813 of 2015 contending that the petitioner gave incorrect information in the online application form. Additionally, it was contended that the petitioner did not possess Non Creamy Layer status Certificate issued after 01.04.2015 as on the date of filling up of online form. Respondent no. 4 questioned the action of the respondents in entertaining the subsequent document in the form of fresh Non Creamy Layer status certificate dated 17.07.2015 which was never mentioned in the online application form of the petitioner.

8. The learned Tribunal passed order dated 22.04.2019 holding that the Non Creamy Layer Certificate relied upon/furnished by the petitioner violated three mandatory conditions of the advertisement. It, therefore, held that participation of the petitioner and her selection in the process was illegal. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal proceeded to set aside the selection and ap