Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 98
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 25347 of 2023]
PRIYANKA PRAKASH
KULKARNI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2024.02.10
13:12:43 IST
Reason:
of ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B’ officers under the Government of
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 1 of 9
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.
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 2 of 9
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
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 3 of 9
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 matter, it is
amply clear that the Petitioner had applied
from Open General Category, because she did
not hold the NCL Certificate. Having appeared
for the Preliminary examination as well as
Main examination from the “Open General”
Category, merely because a corrigendum is
issued, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to
change the category at this stage, more so, on
background of the general instructions to the
candidate contained in paragraph Nos.1.2.5.6
and 1.2.5.7, which does not permit to make any
changes once the form is filled in. If the
Petitioner was desirous of making an
Application for general women category, she
ought to have obtained the NCL in advance
showing diligence, which she has failed. At this
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 4 of 9
stage, if the Petitioner is allowed to change her
category, it will open a flood gate of litigation,
as observed by the MAT. Hence, the said
prayer of the Petitioner cannot be considered.”
10. Mr. Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant has fairly submitted before us that the Appellant did
not submit her application under the ‘Reserved Female Category’
on account of her inability to obtain an NCL Certificate which
was valid as on the last date of submission of the application form
i.e., 01.06.2022. However, upon the issuance of the
Corrigendum, the Appellants’ eligibility qua the ‘Reserved
Female Category’ came to be revived as the Appellant was no
longer mandated to furnish an NCL Certificate which was valid
as on the last date of submission of the application form but
instead was called upon to furnish an NCL Certificate pertaining
to current financial year.
11. Furthermore, Mr. Sharma has submitted before us that 7
(seven) – 8 (eight) other persons who dishonestly applied under
the ‘Reserved Female Category’ without a valid NCL Certificate,
have been granted the benefit under the Corrigendum, and
subsequently upon producing the NCL Certificate as per the
terms of the Corrigendum, the Respondent has proceeded to
consider their candidature under the ‘Reserved Female
Category’.
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 5 of 9
12. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Ld. Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent has vehemently opposed
the aforesaid submission(s). The main thrust of the arguments of
Mr. Chitnis is two-fold i.e., (i) the Appellant cannot be allowed
to change the category of her candidature in light of Clause
1.2.5.6 and 1.2.5.7 of the General Instructions to Candidates
published on the Respondent Commission’s website (the
1
“ Instructions ”) ; and (ii) the Appellant has failed to mark ‘yes’
against the specific question pertaining to a prospective
candidates’ status as a person belonging to the NCL. Accordingly,
it was submitted that the Appellant’s case is differently placed
from the other 7 (seven) – 8 (eight) persons whom whilst having
applied without a valid NCL Certificate, marked ‘yes’ against the
specific question pertaining to their status as a person belonging
to the NCL, and accordingly were granted the benefit under the
Corrigendum.
13. Upon a perusal of Paragraph 5.10 read with Paragraph 5.14
of the Impugned Advertisement, it is clear that any application
under the ‘Reserved Female Category’ was to be supported by an
NCL Certificate that was valid as on the last date of submission
of the application form i.e., 01.06.2022. Subsequently, vide the
issuance of the Corrigendum, the aforenoted position changed;
1
Reliance in this regard was placed on State of T.N. v. G. Hemalathaa , (2020) 19 SCC
430 .
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 6 of 9
and candidates were now eligible to furnish an NCL Certificate
pertaining to the current financial year.
14. Additionally, Clause 1.2.5.6 and 1.2.5.7 of the Instructions
although prohibits any modification and / or change in the
application submitted pursuant to the Impugned Advertisement,
could not have been interpreted in such a manner so as to nullify
the effect of the Corrigendum.
15. In this regard, the reliance placed on G. Hemalathaa ,
(Supra) is misdirected as therein a rule issued by the Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission was admittedly contravened; and
thereafter relaxed by the High Court on humanitarian grounds
erroneously. Herein, it is the on account of the Corrigendum that
certain relaxations have been awarded to all person(s) however,
on account of an overly restrictive interpretation of (i) the
Corrigendum; and (ii) the Instructions, the benefit(s) under the
Corrigendum are being selectively restricted by the Respondent.
16. Admittedly, the Appellant i.e., a candidate who was
scrupulously following the terms and conditions of the Impugned
Advertisement was constrained to apply under the ‘Open General
Category’ only on account of certain logistical limitations
preventing her from obtaining a valid NCL Certificate.
Consequently, in the absence of the requisite documents
evidencing status as a person belonging to the NCL under the
Impugned Advertisement read with the Circular i.e., a valid NCL
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 7 of 9
Certificate as on the date of submission of the application form,
the Appellant did not mark ‘yes’ against the specific question
pertaining to her status as a person belonging to the NCL.
17. The aforenoted conduct of the Appellant is bona-fide .
Accordingly, in our view the Appellant cannot be unfairly
deprived of the benefit of female reservation merely on account
of the 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 the NCL, in the
absence of the underlying supporting document. Additionally,
other similarly situated candidates have been granted the benefit
under the Corrigendum; and their otherwise defective
applications have now been considered by the Respondent.
18. In our considered opinion, the High Court adopted a hyper-
technical interpretation of the Instructions without appreciating
that such an interpretation would nullify the effect of the
Corrigendum. Such an interpretation ought not to have been
adopted especially in light of the fact that other persons have been
granted the benefit of the Corrigendum; and that the Respondent
has relaxed the Instructions qua such persons so as to enable valid
NCL Certificates to be furnished.
19. In light of the aforesaid, we find that the Impugned Order
and resultantly, the Underlying Order ought to be set aside.
Accordingly, taking note of the peculiar facts of the case; and that
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 8 of 9
the Appellant is a meritorious candidate who has cleared the main
examination under the ‘Open General Category’ despite being
deserving of the benefit of female reservation, we are inclined to
balance the equities and do justice by exercising our power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we direct
the Respondent to forthwith treat the Appellant as a candidate
under the ‘Reserved Female Category’.
20. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 29, 2024
SLP (C) No. 25347 of 2023 Page 9 of 9