[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1223 : 2024 INSC 98
Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni
v.
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Civil Appeal No. 1982 of 2024
29 January 2024
[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant was not able to take benefit of female reservation on
account of her inability to produce a valid Non-Creamy Layer
(NCL) certificate on the last date of submission of the application
form. Later, a corrigendum enabled candidates to submit an NCL
certificate valid in the current financial year. However, the High
Court held that since the petitioner had applied from Open General
Category because she did not hold the NCL certificate, her prayer
for change of category cannot be accepted.
Headnotes
Service Law – Female Reservation – Non-Creamy Layer
certificate – Change of category – Appellant contended that
she 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:
Held: 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
1224 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
person belonging to the NCL under the impugned advertisement
read with the Circular i.e., a valid NCL 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 – The aforenoted conduct of
the appellant is bonafide – Accordingly, 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 – The High Court
adopted a hypertechnical interpretation of the instructions without
appreciating that such an interpretation would nullify the effect of
the Corrigendum – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 16, 17, 18]
Case Law Cited
State of T.N. v. G. Hemalathaa (2020) 19 SCC 430 –
referred to.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Female reservation; Non-creamy Layer certificate;
Eligibility qua ‘reserved female category; hypertechnical
interpretation of instructions; Benefit of corrigendum; Relaxed
instructions.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1982 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No.9040 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Abhijeet Pawar, Praveen B. Kamble, Lalit Kaushik, Dinesh Bhardwaj,
Sashank Gaurav, Amit Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rahul Chitnis, Garv Singh, Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Chander Shekhar
Ashri, Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1225
Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. Maharashtra Public
Service Commission
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
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 of ‘Group A’ and ‘Group
B’ officers under the Government of 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.
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’.
1226 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
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
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1227
Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. Maharashtra Public
Service Commission
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 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’.
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 “Instructions”)1
; 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
1 Reliance in this regard was placed on State of T.N. v. G. Hemalathaa, (2020) 19 SCC 430.
1228 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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; 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 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.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1229
Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. Maharashtra Public
Service Commission
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 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.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeal allowed.
