PRIYANKA PRAKASH KULKARNI  Vs.  MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION 

CITATION	Civil Appeal No(s). of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 25347 of 2023]
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	29th January,2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni
RESPONDENT	Maharashtra Public Services Commission
BENCH	Satish Chandra Sharma, Vikram Nath, JJ.

INTRODUCTION 

An advertisement was issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) on May 11, 2022, regarding the State Services Preliminary examination for ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B’ officers under the Government of Maharashtra. The advertisement included provisions for female reservation, subject to certain prerequisites:

• The candidate must be a domicile of Maharashtra.
• The candidate must belong to the Non-Creamy Layer (NCL).

The appellant, Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni, was employed as a State Tax Officer in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department, Nodal 3, Pune, Maharashtra. She submitted her application under the ‘Open General Category’ due to her inability to produce a valid NCL Certificate by the last submission date. However, she was otherwise eligible for the ‘Reserved Female Category’. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. The Respondent issued an advertisement on 11.05.2022 for the State Services Preliminary Examination to recruit Group A and Group B officers under the Government of Maharashtra. Paragraph 5.5 of the advertisement provided for female reservation subject to certain prerequisites, including being a domicile of Maharashtra and belonging to the Non-Creamy Layer (NCL).

2. The Appellant, who is employed as a State Tax Officer in the GST Department, submitted her application for the State Services Preliminary Examination under the ‘Open General Category’ as she was unable to produce a valid NCL Certificate. However, she was eligible to apply under the ‘Reserved Female Category’. She cleared the preliminary and main examinations from the ‘Open General Category’.

3. Following the issuance of a Corrigendum on 17.02.2023, candidates were allowed to submit an NCL Certificate valid in the current financial year, as opposed to one valid as on the last date of submission of the application form. The Appellant, who had been eligible to apply under the ‘Reserved Female Category’ but lacked a valid NCL Certificate, subsequently obtained one on 09.03.2023. However, her representation to the Respondent was not considered. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed her OA, stating that she did not possess an NCL Certificate prior to the issuance of the Corrigendum. The Appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the decision.

4. The MAT’s decision in Original Application No. 396 of 2023 was upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, leading to the dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the impugned judgement and order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) were valid ?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

1. In the present case, the appellant has contended that she should be allowed to change the category of her candidature from the General Category to the Reserved Female Category. 

2. The appellant argued that certain clauses in the General Instructions to Candidates published on the Respondent Commission’s website entitle her to the benefit of reservation under the Corrigendum.

3. The appellant had failed to mark ‘yes’ against the specific question related to her status as a person belonging to the Non-Creamy Layer (NCL). However, the appellant argued that she should still be granted the benefit under the Corrigendum, similar to other candidates who applied without a valid NCL Certificate but marked ‘yes’ against the specific question. 

4. The appellant has claimed that she had mistakenly missed marking ‘yes’ against the specific question and that the Commission should have provided her with an opportunity to rectify the mistake and change the category of her candidature. The appellant has further contended that she fulfilled all the other prerequisites mentioned in the Impugned Advertisement, including being a domicile of Maharashtra.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent Commission vehemently argued that the appellant had failed to mark ‘yes’ against the specific question related to her status as a person belonging to the Non-Creamy Layer (NCL), unlike other candidates who applied without a valid NCL Certificate but marked ‘yes’ and were granted the benefit under the Corrigendum. 

2. The Respondent Commission contended that allowing the appellant to change her category at this stage would open a floodgate of litigation, as observed by the MAT. The Respondent Commission emphasized that the appellant did not submit her application under the ‘Reserved Female Category’ due to her inability to obtain a valid NCL Certificate by the last date of submission. 

3. The Respondent Commission further argued that the appellant cannot be granted the benefit of reservation under the Corrigendum as she had failed to mark ‘yes’ against the specific question related to her NCL status, which was a crucial prerequisite for availing the benefit of reservation.

4.  The Respondent Commission also highlighted that the General Instructions to Candidates published on their website were clear and unambiguous, and it was the duty of the candidates to carefully read and understand the instructions before applying for the examination. 

5. The Respondent Commission maintained that the appellant had failed to fulfil the prerequisites mentioned in the Impugned Advertisement, and therefore, was not eligible for the benefit of reservation under the NCL category. The matter was brought before the Court, and after considering the arguments put forth by both parties, the Court observed that the appellant had failed to fulfil the prerequisites mentioned in the Impugned Advertisement, and therefore, cannot be granted the benefit of reservation under the NCL category. The Court emphasized that the appellant cannot be allowed to change the category of her candidature after the selection process has already been completed.

JUDGEMENT 

1. In the judgment given by the Supreme Court, it was observed that the High Court had adopted a hyper-technical interpretation of the Instructions without appreciating the effect of the Corrigendum.
2.  Such an interpretation was considered inappropriate, given that other persons had been granted the benefit of the Corrigendum, and the Respondent had relaxed the Instructions for such persons to enable valid NCL Certificates to be furnished. 
3. The Impugned Order and the Underlying Order were set aside in light of the peculiar facts of the case, and the Appellant was directed to be treated as a candidate under the Reserved Female Category.
4.  This decision was taken after balancing the equities and exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, acknowledging that the Appellant is a meritorious candidate who had cleared the main examination under the Open General Category, despite being deserving of the benefit of female reservation.

ANALYSIS 

1. In a recent case, the appellant had requested a change in her category of candidature based on the General Instructions to Candidates, which was opposed by the respondent.

2.  However, the court found that the appellant was a deserving candidate who had cleared the main examination under the ‘Open General Category’ but was entitled to the benefit of female reservation.

3.  After careful consideration, the court set aside the Impugned Order and invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure justice for the appellant.

CONCLUSION 

In the case of Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni, a highly deserving candidate who had cleared the main examination under the ‘Open General Category’, the issue of female reservation benefit arose due to the unavailability of a valid Non-Creamy Layer certificate. However, the Supreme Court directed the Respondent to treat her as a candidate under the ‘Reserved Female Category’, highlighting the importance of recognizing her merit and eligibility. The Court emphasized the significance of fairness and ensuring that deserving candidates are not unfairly deprived of their rightful benefits.

REFERENCES

1. Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission on 29 January, 2024 (indiankanoon.org)
2. Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission – Supreme Court Cases

This Article is written by Samruddhi Lele, student of Shankarao Chavan Law College Pune (MMSCLC); Intern at Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.