Top Court directs GST State Tax Officer’s candidature to be considered under ‘Reserved Female Category’, says HC adopted a hyper technical interpretation nullifying the effect of Corrigendum
Justices Vikram Nath & Satish Chandra Sharma [29-01-2024]

Read Order: PRIYANKA PRAKASH KULKARNI v. MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1982 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, February 14, 2024:  While observing that the appellant is a meritorious candidate who has cleared the main examination of State Tax Officer despite being deserving of the benefit of female reservation, the Supreme Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the Union to treat her as a candidate under the ‘Reserved Female Category’.

The facts of the case suggested that an advertisement was issued by the Respondent in relation to the State Services Preliminary Examination for the recruitment of persons to the post of ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B’ officers under the Government of Maharashtra (Impugned Advertisement). Pertinently, Paragraph 5.5 of the Impugned Advertisement contemplated the benefit of female reservation subject to certain prerequisites which included that the candidate must be a domicile of Maharashtra and must belong to the Non-Creamy Layer (NCL).

In the aforesaid context, the Appellant i.e., a candidate employed as State Tax Officer in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department 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, the Appellant was otherwise eligible to apply under ‘Reserved Female Category’ qua the underlying examination being conducted pursuant to the Impugned Advertisement.

Thereafter, the Appellant cleared the preliminary and main examination from the ‘Open General Category’. In the interregnum, the Department of Other Backward Bahujan Welfare issued a corrigendum amending Clause 2 (iii) of a circular whereunder the procedure of obtaining; and validity of NCL Certificates’ were regulated. 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.

The Appellant 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. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of her representation, the Appellant preferred the OA before the MAT but the same was dismissed. Her writ petition before the High Court was dismissed vide the impugned Order.

The appellant submitted that her 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.

Referring to Paragraph 5.10 r/w Paragraph 5.14 of the Impugned Advertisement, the Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma opined 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. 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.

It was noticed that 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. As per the Bench, 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.

“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”, the Bench held while further adding, “In our considered opinion, the High Court adopted a hypertechnical interpretation of the Instructions without appreciating that such an interpretation would nullify the effect of the Corrigendum.”

Such an interpretation, as per the Bench, ought not to have been adopted especially in light of the fact that other persons had been granted the benefit of the Corrigendum; and the Respondent ha relaxed the Instructions qua such persons so as to enable valid NCL Certificates to be furnished.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the Respondent to forthwith treat the Appellant as a candidate under the ‘Reserved Female Category’.