Notes Raw Data

Challenge was laid to the decision of the Bombay High Court, dismissing the writ petition and affirming the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner participated in the selection and recruitment process carried out by the Government of Maharashtra. The advertisement contemplated the benefit of female reservation to the female candidates on satisfying two conditions: (i) that the candidate must be a domicile of Maharashtra; and (ii) that the candidate must belong to the non-creamy layer. Vide Clauses 5.10 and 5.14, the candidate was obligated to submit a non-creamy layer certificate issued by the competent authority, valid as on the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 1-6-2022. The petitioner in the present case applied for the aforesaid examination under the “open general category” on account of her inability to produce a valid non-creamy layer certificate, but admittedly and undoubtedly the appellant was otherwise eligible to apply under “reserved female category” qua the underlying examination. In the meanwhile, during the progress of the selection process, the Other Backward Classes (OBC) Department of the State issued a corrigendum enabling candidates to submit non-creamy layer certificate valid in the current financial year as against the non-creamy layer certificate valid on the last date of submission of the application form. The petitioner accordingly obtained a non-creamy layer certificate in March 2023, who was otherwise eligible as on 1-6-2022. The appellant thereafter made representation to the respondent to consider her candidature as a “reserved female category” candidate, which was rejected. This led to proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the Bombay High Court up to which the petitioner was unsuccessful. It was stated before the Supreme Court that a number of other candidates who were not eligible on the date of application had been granted the benefit by virtue of the corrigendum without a valid non-creamy layer certificate. Court found that appellant never indulged into any misrepresentation or furnishing of incorrect information of being in possession of valid non-creamy layer certificate as she participated against the “open general category”. The Court thus held that appellant could not have been unfairly deprived of the benefit of female reservation, when admittedly she was otherwise eligible for the same. Courts should not adopt a hypertechnical interpretation of the instructions in the advertisement without appreciating that such an interpretation would nullify the effect of the corrigendum issued by the State Government. Since the appellant is a meritorious candidate, having cleared the mains examination under the “open general category”, despite being otherwise eligible for the benefit of female reservation, the Supreme Court balanced the equities and invoking extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directed the respondent to forthwith treat the appellant under the head of “reserved female category”. The SLP was accordingly disposed of.