HEENA QASIM PHOPLUNKAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:9657-DB
901-WP-1746-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1746 OF 2026
Ms.Heena Qasim Phoplunkar,
Age : 34 Years, Occupation : Service,
Residing at post : Sai, Taluka : Mangaon,
District : Raigad. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Government Pleader,
High Court (Appellate Side),
Writ Cell, Fort, Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
Through The Secretary,
Address : Trishul Gold Field, Plot No.34,
Sector 11, Opposite Sarovar Vihar,
Belapur CBD, Navi Mumbai : 400614.
3. The Principal Secretary,
General Administrative Department,
Having Office at Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...Respondents
===================================================
Mr.Surel Shah (Senior Advocate) a/w Mr.Saakshat Relekar,
Mrs.Kalpana Chate, Mr.Bharat Shinde, Mr.Govind Mundhe, Mr.Parth
Wareraj Ware and Mr.Vinod Kendre i/b. Chate and Associates,
Advocates for Petitioner.
Ms.Kavita N. Solunke, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 3–State.
Ms.Pranali Kakade, Advocate for Respondent No.2–MPSC.
===================================================
Digitally
signed by
LATA SUNIL
PANJWANI
Date:
2026.02.25
17:48:00
+0530
LATA
SUNIL
PANJWANI
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
th
DATE : 18 FEBRUARY 2026
1/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.)

th
1. This petition challenges the order dated 29 January 2026
passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai
(“TRIBUNAL”, henceforth, in short) dismissing the Original
Application No.1423 of 2025 (“OA”, for short) filed by the petitioner /
original applicant. The OA was filed by the petitioner for the following
reliefs:-
“a. This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the general
merit list published by Respondent on 30/10/2025 is
incorrect as Respondent has failed to include name of the
Applicant in the general merit list.
b. This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside
impugned letter dated 09/11/2025 issued by MPSC and
direct the Respondent MPSC to consider the Representation
dated 12/11/2025-19/11/2025 submitted by the Applicant
and further be pleased to direct Respondent MPSC to revise
and include the name of the applicant in the general merit list
and further, if found fit, direct MPSC to call for preferences
from the applicant.”
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a candidate
who belongs to the ‘Economically Weaker Section’ (“EWS”, for short)
who applied for appointment to the post in Civil Services and Multi-
Cadre of the State of Maharashtra. An advertisement was published by
the Respondent No.2 – Maharashtra Public Service Commission
2/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
th
(“MPSC” for short) on 29 December 2023 for the purpose of

recruitment and filling-up 274 posts. The petitioner filed an
application along with necessary documents and thereafter, the hall
th
ticket was issued to the petitioner on 28 April 2024. After clearing
Preliminary Examinations, the second advertisement was published on
th
18 March 2025 wherein it was stipulated as to the Main
th
Examinations to be held on 28 April 2025.
th
3. On 28 March 2025, the petitioner filed an application form in
the EWS Category (Female). The petitioner passed all examinations
and scored 545.75 marks under EWS Female Category. The petitioner
st
received an interview call letter on 1 October 2025. As per clauses 5
and 6 of the interview letter, only after thorough verification of the
petitioner’s documents, such interview letter was addressed which the
petitioner attended. The general merit list was published by the
respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner’s name was not enlisted. The
last candidate from the said category had scored 532.25 marks and
therefore, the petitioner having scored 545.75 marks was expecting
that she would be appointed.
4. The petitioner, on inquiry, came to know that there was some
error in her EWS certificate which fact was never communicated to her.
st
Accordingly, a representation was made by the petitioner on 31
3/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
th
October 2025 along with the EWS certificate. On 9 November 2025,

the respondent No.2 – MPSC addressed a letter to the petitioner
seeking clarification of the documents submitted by the petitioner. By
th
representation dated 12 November 2025, the petitioner submitted
the relevant EWS certificates for the years 2021-2022, 2022-2023,
2023-2024 and 2024-2025.
5. As there was no response from the respondent No.2, the
petitioner filed OA before the Tribunal in December-2025. By the
th
interim order dated 17 December 2025, the Tribunal directed the
respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection
th
process. The Tribunal dismissed the OA on 29 January 2026 holding
that the petitioner did not possess the EWS certificate for the year
2023-2024 which was an essential requirement.
6. Ms.Pranali Kakade, learned counsel for MPSC argued in support
of the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner had
knowledge of the form in which the EWS certificate was to be
furnished. It is submitted that admittedly the certificate produced by
the petitioner was not in the form required and the certificate which
was produced by the petitioner was valid for the year 2024-2025 and
not for the year 2023-2024 which was the requirement. It is further
submitted that no reliance can be placed on the subsequent
4/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
communications of the Tahsildar which is relied upon by the petitioner

as these communications only signed by the Tahsildar only make a
reference to the fact that such a certificate was for the year 2023-2024,
but this does not fulfill the essential requirement that the Certificate
has to be in the form prescribed. Learned counsel for MPSC was at
pains to point out that it is not expected from the MPSC analyze all the
documents and come to the conclusion that the certificate that is
produced by the petitioner is valid for the year 2023-2024 when
factually the certificate that is produced by the petitioner is valid for
the year 2024-2025. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for
the MPSC relied upon the Affidavit-in-Reply filed on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 and following decisions:-
(i) Mohit Kumar V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., decided
th
on 15 May 2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.5233 of 2025 .
(ii) Divya V/s. Union of India and Others [(2024) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 448] .
(iii) Bedanga Talukdar V/s. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011)
12 Supreme Court Cases 85] .
7. We have heard Mr.Surel Shah, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner, learned counsel Ms.Pranali Kakade for respondent No.2 –
MPSC and Ms.Kavita Solunke, learned Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.1
5/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
and 3 – State.

8. The Tribunal held that the respondent No.2 – MPSC is not
expected to scrutinize the documents submitted to form an opinion
that the EWS certificate for the year 2023-2024 is a valid document. It
was further held that the Tahsildar is not competent to issue EWS
certificate. The Tribunal observed that the advertisement in question
does not expressly mention as to for which year the EWS certificate is
submitted but the same has to be read with the Government
th st
Resolutions (“GR”, for short) dated 12 February 2019 and 31 May
2021. For the sake of uniformity, the Tribunal observed that the MPSC
rejected another candidate for want of EWS certificate. The relevant
findings of the Tribunal need to be extracted as learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 – MPSC heavily relied upon the said findings in
support of the submissions. The findings read thus:-
“11. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused
the papers it is necessary to emphasize the fact that as a
matter of fact the applicant does not possess any EWS
certificate for the year 2023-24 even now. What she has been
expecting is that the MPSC and even the tribunal shall
undertake some kind of scrutiny of the certificate at pg 26
which is dated 09.05.2024 coupled with the subsequent
certificate of Tahsildar dated 17.05.2022 (Exhibit C), to
deduce an inference that this certificate (pg 26) though in the
6/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
heading mentions it to be valid for the year 2024-25 should

be treated as valid for the year 2023-24. In our considered
view no such inferential exercise could have been undertaken
by the MPSC once it was noticed that she had not produced
the EWS certificate for the year 2023-24. It was not expected
of the MPSC to undertake some scrutiny, note the facts and
draw some inference to reach the conclusion that the
applicant was belonging to EWS category, more so when the
GRs dated 12.02.2019 and 31.05.2021 expressly expected
the candidates to possess EWS certificate which is valid for
the financial year in which advertisement is issued, which in
the present case was issued on 29.12.2023.
12. For that matter, even the Tribunal, in exercise of the powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
indulge into such inferential deduction by sifting the
evidence.
13. Surprisingly, even if the certificate of the Tahsildar issued on
17.05.2022 (Exhibit C) has to be considered, one wonders as
to why the Tahsildar has to indulge into any such act of
interpretation of the certificate (Pg 26) issued by him. The
learned advocate for the applicant could not dispute the fact
that the Tahsildars can legally issue the EWS certificate for a
particular financial year only during that year. They cannot
issue such certificates for the previous financial year /s. If this
is so, a plane reading of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar
(Exhibit C) reveals that the applicant submitted the
application to his office for obtaining EWS certificate on
23.04.2024 and accordingly it was issued on 09.05.2024. It
7/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
is precisely for this reason that endeavour is being made by

the applicant to emphasize that the EWS certificate dated
09.05.2024 to be treated as valid for the year 2023-24.
Firstly, the Tahsildar could not have issued such certificate in
the subsequent financial year and, secondly, the certificate
itself in the heading mentions it to be valid for the year 2024-
25.
14. Though the learned advocate for the applicant faintly argued
that the applicant had submitted the application for EWS
certificate in Jan.2024, neither there is any such pleading nor
is a copy of such application produced on the record, nor was
her such a stand at any earlier point of time. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to claim that the EWS certificate
produced by her expressly stating it to be valid for the year
2024-25 should be regarded and treated as valid for the year
2023-24.
15. True it is that both the advertisements in question do not
expressly mention as to for which financial year the
candidates should possess the EWS certificate. The
advertisements cannot be read in isolation but will have to be
read in conjunction with the relevant GRs, dated 12.02.2019
and 31.05.2021. Undisputedly, many other EWS candidates
could produce valid EWS certificates for the year 2023-24.
This is sufficient to dispel the convenient stand taken by the
applicant about the confusion in her mind. It is not her case
that all the candidates were in similar confusion.
16. Obviously, there cannot be a dispute that a uniform criteria
has been applied by the MPSC as is evident from admitted
8/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
disqualification of a fellow candidate Smt. Bhagyashri

Kulkarni. In these circumstances, merely because she is
meritorious, the applicant is not entitled to claim any writ of
mandamus against the MPSC for consideration of her
eligibility which she pertinently does not possess for not
having a valid EWS certificate. There is no merit in the
Original Application and it is liable to be dismissed.”
9. The petitioner applied under the EWS Category. Though it is
the submission of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the
advertisement does not stipulate the relevant year for which the valid
EWS certificate is the requirement, the materials on record indicate
that even the petitioner has correctly understood that the EWS
certificate had to be valid for the year 2023-2024. We, therefore,
proceed to consider whether the EWS certificate which is produced by
the petitioner is in compliance with the essential requirement or not.
10. Before we proceed further, it would be profitable to seek
guidance from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of submitting the certificates required in the form prescribed
during the course of the recruitment. In the case of Mohit Kumar
(supra), Their Lordships were considering the issue “whether UPPRPB
was bound to accept the OBC certificates submitted by Mohit and
Kiran which, admittedly, were not in the format prescribed in the
9/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
Recruitment Notification” . In that context, Their Lordships observed

that “instead of producing a certificate by the competent authority, the
applicant produced a certificate issued by the Director of the Backward
Classes Welfare Department certifying him as a member of the
Scheduled Tribe community; hence, such certificate was ignored and
he was considered to be a general candidate” . The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has laid down that “non-compliance with the terms of the
advertisement/notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences of
rejection of the aspirant’s claimed status by the selecting
body/appointing authority, should he choose not to adhere to the same.
Having regard thereto, the selecting body/appointing authority would
be justified in not entertaining the application of an aspirant as a
member of the community for whom reservations are permissible” .
11. In the light of what has been observed by Their Lordships, this
Court is bound by the proposition expounded which we must bear in
mind while considering the submissions.
12. The next decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the
MPSC is Divya (supra). Their Lordships have held that:-
“The candidates claiming benefit of EWS category for the
purpose of CSE-2022, acquire eligibility only if they meet the
criterion prescribed by the Central Government in the OM
dated 19-1-2019 and 31-1-2019 and are in possession of the
10/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
required Income and Asset Certificate (“I&AC”), based on the

income for the year 2020-21. Further, as required under Rule
28 of the CSE Rules, 2022 read with the OM of 19-1-2019
and 31-1-2019 the candidate should have been in possession of
the Income and Asset Certificate (“I&AC”) as on 22-2-2022.
Any candidate not in possession of the I&AC in the prescribed
format as mentioned hereinabove cannot claim the benefit of
EWS category. Equally, as required under Rule 13 of the CSE
Rules, 2022 at the stage of DAF-I, the document in possession
as on 22-2-2022 in the prescribed format, had to be submitted
online before the prescribed date. UPSC was justified in
rejecting the candidature of those candidates claiming benefit
under the EWS category if they had submitted their I&AC
beyond the stipulated deadline.”
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:-
“UPSC was justified in prescribing the cut-off date for
possession and for uploading of the I&AC in the prescribed
format for claimants claiming benefits under the EWS
category” .
14. The next decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 – MPSC is Bedanga Talukdar (supra). The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that:-
“The selection process has to be conducted strictly in
accordance with stipulated selection procedure which needs to
be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in
terms and conditions of advertisement unless such power is
11/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
specifically reserved in relevant rules and/or in advertisement” .

15. Let us consider the present case on the touchstone of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases. In
the present case, it is pertinent to note that the advertisement nowhere
stipulated a cut-off date for furnishing the documents which would
th
fulfill the eligibility. Clause No.6.12 of the advertisement dated 29
December 2023 prescribes thus:-
^^6-12 vkfFkZdn`"V;k nqcZy ?kVdkarhy ¼bZMC;w,l½ mesnokjkadjhrk ’kklu fu.kZ;] lkekU;
iz’kklu foHkkx] Øekad % jkvk/kks&4019@iz-Ø-31@16&v] fnukad 12 Qsczqokjh]
2019 o fnukad 31 es] 2021 vUo;s fofgr dj.;kr vkysys izek.ki=]
dkxni= iMrkG.khP;k osGh lknj dj.ks vko’;d jkghy-
The clause No.6.12 roughly translated in English, provides that in
terms of the GR referred in clause No.6.12, the EWS candidates have
to provide the necessary EWS certificate at the time of scrutiny of the
documents. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the MPSC
had called the petitioner for interview. In Affidavit-in-Reply, it is stated
that “the petitioner got qualified for the interview of the present
recruitment process. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for the
th
interview on 10 October, 2025. At the time of document checking
before the interview, the petitioner did not produce the E.W.S.
certificate valid for the financial year 2023-2024. However, she
produced E.W.S. certificates valid for the financial years of 2022-2023
12/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
and 2024-2025” . It is stated in the Affidavit-in-Reply that “the

petitioner was inadvertently held eligible for the interview by the
officer of the Commission” .
16. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation thereby
requesting the Commission to include the name of the petitioner in the
general merit list. In terms of the Instruction No.1.4.3. of the General
Instructions to the candidates available on the official website of the
Commission, the documents submitted by the candidates belonging to
the EWS category were checked by the Commission before publishing
the general merit list of present recruitment process. Upon checking, it
was found that the petitioner had not submitted the EWS certificate
valid for the year 2023-2024. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner
th
is not included in the general merit list published on 30 October
2025 for present recruitment process.
th
17. Thereafter, the Commission published announcement of 9
November 2025 thereby informing her that she was not included in
the general merit list for not producing the requirement EWS
certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation
thereby requesting the Commission to include her name in general
merit list. Accordingly, as per Instruction No.1.4.3 of the General
Instructions to the candidates, she was called in the office of the
13/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
th
Commission on 11 November 2025 to represent her stand regarding

her non-inclusion in the general merit list and to produce the
documents regarding her claim. The petitioner was thus given a chance
th
by the Commission to produce the documents even as on 11
November 2025. Even as per the stand of the MPSC, it is therefore
th
evident that the petitioner had time till 11 November 2025 to
substantiate her claim and produce the documents. In the present fact
th
situation and even as per stand of MPSC, 11 November 2025 will
have to be regarded as the date by which the petitioner had to furnish
the necessary documents to substantiate her claim.
th
18. The bone of contention is the EWS certificate dated 9 May
2024 issued by the Tahsildar which is at Page No.43 of the petitioner
which mentions that the same is valid for the year 2024-2025. In the
said certificate, it is mentioned that the gross family annual income for
the year 2023-2024 from all source is Rs.7,84,500/- which is less than
Rs.8,00,000/-. However, the EWS certificate mentions that the same is
valid for the year 2024-2025. We find that as per the eligibility criteria,
the EWS certificate is in the proper format, however, the objection of
the MPSC is that the same is not for the year 2023-2024 and therefore,
such certificate is not considered by the MPSC as a valid certificate.
th
19. It is not in dispute that if the EWS certificate dated 9 May 2024
14/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
produced by the petitioner is regarded as correct, the same was well

within time. After opportunity was given to the petitioner, the
petitioner had made a representation which received by the MPSC on
st
31 October 2025 enclosing the additional documents/certificates. The
th
petitioner relied upon the certificate dated 18 April 2024 issued by
the Tahsildar which was a certificate regarding the income certificate
issued for the year 2023-2024 where the yearly income is shown as
Rs.7,84,500/-. The fact that the Tahsildar has issued the certificate
which reflects the gross income of Rs.7,84,500/- for the year 2023-
2024 clearly demonstrates that there was an error in mentioning the
year 2024-2025 in the EWS certificate which was submitted by the
petitioner which factually is for the year 2023-2024. Even from the
plain reading of the certificate, it would reveal that the EWS certificate
th
is dated 9 May 2024 whereas the validity is for the period from 2024-
2025. This is obviously an error committed by the Tahsildar which is
then sought to be clarified by the Tahsildar by issuing the clarification/
th
certificate dated 7 November 2025 wherein it is clearly mentioned
that the said EWS certificate is for the year 2023-2024.
20. We find that the respondent No.2-MPSC is more on the form
than the substance of the certificate. The certificate is in the prescribed
format as required by the MPSC. The Tahsildar in fact clarified that the
15/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
year mentioned in the certificate is erroneously stated and that the said

validity should have been for the year 2023-2024. The petitioner,
therefore, cannot be made to suffer for the error committed by the
Tahsildar which is apparent on the face of record. Even a plain reading
th th
of the EWS certificate dated 9 May 2024 and the certificate dated 18
April 2024 would make it clear that obviously this is an inadvertent
error committed by the Tahsildar and in fact, the said certificate for
EWS is to be regarded for the year 2023-2024. This is not a case where
a detailed analysis was required to be conducted by the MPSC to form
an opinion that the EWS certificate was for the year 2023-2024.
21. The petitioner is a meritorious candidate. The petitioner has
secured more marks than the candidates whose name who find place in
the select list. We hold that the certificate is in the prescribed format
and therefore, there is no breach of the eligibility condition prescribed
by the MPSC. We are bound by the observations of Their Lordships in
Mohit Kumar (supra), that non-compliance with the terms of the
advertisement/notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences of
rejection of the petitioner claimed status by the selecting
body/appointing authority, should he choose not to adhere to the same.
Present is not a case where the petitioner is non compliant with the
terms of the advertisement/notification. In fact, the EWS certificate in
16/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
the proper format issued by the competent authority i.e. the Tahsildar

has been produced. The application made by the petitioner was for the
EWS certificate in respect of the income for the year 2023-2024. The
mistake committed by the Tahsildar in mentioning the year is accepted
by the Tahsildar. This was formally communicated to the petitioner. In
such circumstances, the EWS certificate has to be regarded as valid
certificate for the year 2023-2024 duly produced by the petitioner
which satisfies the eligibility criteria. Moreover, the present is not a case
where the cut-off date has been prescribed before which date all the
documents have to be furnished. In any case, the EWS certificate has
been produced well within time, we, therefore, find the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Divya (supra) is distinguishable on facts.
22. In our opinion, even the decision in Bedanga Talukdar (supra) is
distinguishable on facts. Their Lordships in Bedanga Talukdar , have
held that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in
accordance with stipulated selection procedure which needs to be
scrupulously maintained. It is held by the Supreme Court that, there
cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of advertisement
unless such power is specifically reserved in relevant rules and/or in
advertisement. This is not a case of relaxation of the rules. The
selection is proceeding in accordance with the stipulated procedure.
17/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
This is just a case where the MPSC though should have regarded the

EWS certificate produced by the petitioner as a valid certificate, on a
very technical consideration, without considering the substance of the
certificate is not regarding the EWS certificate produced by the
petitioner well in time as valid.
23. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the uniform criteria has to
be applied by the MPSC relying on the disqualification of a fellow
candidate Smt.Bhagyashri Kulkarni. The Tribunal further held that
merely because the petitioner is meritorious, she is not entitled to claim
any writ of mandamus against the MPSC for consideration of her
eligibility which she pertinently does not possess for not having a valid
EWS certificate. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has proceeded on an
erroneous premise. The certificate produced by the petitioner has to be
held as valid certificate and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for
the mistake that is committed by the Tahsildar. On the face of the
materials, it is apparent that the certificate wrongly records the valid
year as 2024-2025 when it is obvious that the same is for the year
2023-2024 which error has been clarified by the Tahsildar. In such
view of the matter, we quash and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
24. The provisional select list is yet to be forwarded by the MPSC to
the State Government. By the interim order, the petitioner was allowed
18/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::

901-WP-1746-2026.doc
to participate in the selection process. Further, this Court by interim

order held that though the process may go on, one post of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police / Assistant Commissioner, Group ‘A’ be kept
vacant. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a). Consequently, the OA before the Tribunal is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Original Application. The
petitioner’s name be included at the appropriate place in the select list.
No order as to cost.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
19/19
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 18:04:19 :::