IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.V. Gangapurwala, Sandeep V. Marne, JJ.
Sanjivani Abasaheb Karne and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.585 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Petitioners assail judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application – Original Application was instituted by Petitioners challenging their non-selection on post communication – Held, Court has upheld cancellation of candidatures on account of making false declaration in online application form about possession of requisite valid non-creamy layer certificate – Special Leave Petition filed by Petitioners has been dismissed by Court by its order – In our opinion, therefore, Tribunal has already followed law expanded by this Court to which one of us was member – Court are of considered view that no error is committed by Tribunal in dismissing Original Application filed by Petitioners – Discharged accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties and is taken up for final hearing.
2. By this Petition, Petitioners assail judgment and order dated 9 January 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short) in Original Application No.701 of 2022. The Original Application was instituted by the Petitioners challenging their non-selection on the post of Talathi vide communication dated 27 May 2021.
3. The selection was convened by the District Selection Board and Collector, Satara, for filling of 114 posts of Talathi. The Petitioners applied in pursuance of the selection under various following categories:
| Sr. No. | Name of Petitioners | Applied in Category |
| 1 | Petitioner No.1 Sanjivani Abasaheb Karne | OBC |
| 2 | Petitioner No. 2 Shubhangi Madhukar Misal | OBC |
| 3 | Petitioner No. 3 Narale Dattatray Nana | Ex-serviceman OBC |
| 4 | Petitioner No. 4 Akshay Sudam Lohar | NT-B (General) |
| 5 | Petitioner No. 5 Pooja Vijay Narvekar | Female (General) |
| 6 | Petitioner No. 6 Chhaya Subhash Badiger | Female OBC (Anshkalin) |
4. Under the stipulations of the advertisement, it was incumbent for the candidates applying for reservation in above categories to produce non-creamy layer certificate for the year 2018-19 valid up to 31 March 2019. All Petitioners stated ‘applicable’ in the column seeking information about ‘non-creamy layer certificate’. The advertisement stipulated possession of valid non-creamy layer certificate as on date filling of online application form. It is common ground that none of the Petitioners were in possession of the requisite non-creamy layer certificates and applied the same after filling of the online application forms and the same were issued well after filling of the online application forms.
5. The Petitioners however were permitted to participate in the selection process. They apparently cleared the written test and their names were allegedly included in the original selection list. By letter dated 28 December 2020, they were directed to remain present for verification of their documents scheduled to be conducted from 6 January 2021 to 9 January 2021. It is contended that communications dated 19 January 2021 was sent to each of the Petitioners alleging non-submission of non-creamy layer certificate valid up on 31 March 2019. They were granted an opportunity to submit the same by 27 January 2021. However, on account of failure of the Petitioners to submit non-creamy layer certificate valid upto 31 March 2019, the candidatures were cancelled vide order dated 27 May 2021.
6. Aggrieved by the communication dated 27 May 2021, Petitioners instituted Original Application No.701 of 2022 before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 9 January 2023. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Petitioners have filed present Petition.
7. Appearing for the Petitioner Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel would submit that there is no dispute to the position that the Petitioners do belong to non-creamy layer category. He would submit that as long as the Petitioners’ status as non-creamy layer category is not under dispute, Respondents cannot be permitted to take a hyper-technical defence and reject candidature of the Petitioners only on account of non-possession of the requisite certificates at the time of filling up of online application forms. It is submitted that in the past as well as in several other districts, candidates were permitted to submit non-creamy layer certificates subsequently and such candidates have been appointed in service. Reliance is placed on recruitment advertisement published by Maharashtra Public Service Commission (in short ‘MPSC’) in respect of some other posts for which candidates are permitted to submit non-creamy layer c
Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another
Candidates must possess and submit valid non-creamy layer certificates as per the advertisement requirements at the time of online application, and false declaration can lead to dismissal of candidat....
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....
Point of Law : Advertisement issued by respondent and letter of Collector makes it clear that all documents including non creamy layer certificate ought to have been produced by successful candidates....
Adherence to terms and conditions in the advertisement and the stipulated selection procedure is crucial for claiming reservation. The requirement of non-creamy layer certificate for reservation agai....
The department should not reject a candidate's candidature altogether based on the production of a certificate of non-creamy layer of a later period, and should insist on collecting the original cert....
Point of Law : Caste Certificate and Income Certificate issued under 1990 Act are two different and distinct certificates. Both certificates cannot be treated alike.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.