Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission

2 The said O.A. was opposed by filing a reply by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (“Commission”, for short), wherein it was their categorical stand that while filling up her application form, the Applicant has mentioned her category to be unreserved and she does not belong to the NCL. The reliance was placed by the Commission in its affidavit on general instructions to the candidates published in Commission’s Website, more particularly, instruction No.1.2.5.[6] and 1.2.5.[7] which provided that “1-2-5-6 dks.kR;kgh tkfgjkrhl vuql#u vtZ lknj dj.;kiwohZ izksQkbZye/;s vko’;d R;k lq/kkj.kk dsY;kl lnj lq/kkj.kk lacaf/kr vtkZe/;s lekfo”V gksÅ ‘kd.kkj ukghr] rlsp vk;ksxkl lknj dsysY;k vtkZe/;s cny dj.;kckcrph mesnokjkph dks.krhgh fouarh fopkjkr ?ksryh tk.kkj ukgh- 1-2-5-7 Li/kkZ ijh{ksP;k iwoZ ijh{ksdjhrk@ljG lsok Hkjrhdjhrk lknj dsysY;k vtkZrhy nkos mnk- vf/kokl] fnO;kax] ekthlSfud] izkfo.;izkIr [ksGkMw] vukFk] tkrhpk izoxZ] ukWu&fdzehys;j] ‘kkldh; deZpkjh] c`gUeaqcbZ egkikftdk@ csLV deZpkjh bR;knh½ eq[; ijh{kk@ljGlsok HkjrhP;k eqyk[krhdjhrk xkg;@vafre let.;kr;srhy- R;ke/;s lacf/kr eq[; ijh{ks djhrk@ljGlsok Hkjrhdjhrk dks.krkgh cny djrk;s.kkj ukgh-Þ

3 The said instructions prohibits an Applicant from making any changes in the application once the form is filled in. Similarly, reliance is also placed on paragraph 5.[5] of the advertisement of the State Services Preliminary Examination 2022, wherein there was a clause that, while claiming reservation for women category, it was mandatory to mention about the candidate belongs to NCL category. Therefore, the said corrigendum of 17 February 2023, which merely changes the cut of date of the NCL can not be made applicable to the Applicant as she did not fill in the form from NCL category.

4 After considering the submission from either side, the MAT, Mumbai, vide its judgment dated 7 July 2023 has been pleased to dismiss the O.A. The said O.A. has been dismissed on the ground that the Applicant has not applied from General Women Category and was not holding the NCL Certificate prior to the issuance of corrigendum dated 17 February 2023. After coming to know about the NCL, she has made an Application on 9 March 2023 and got the said certificate on the very date for the current year. The Tribunal has considered that not only in Preliminary examination, but she has already appeared for the Main examination and result is yet to be declared. The Bench of the Administrative Tribunal has further observed that unlike the case cited of Mrs.Vijaya Milind Patil, the Petitioner had while filling up her form, consciously had stated to be belonging to “Open General” category. Whereas in case of Mrs.Vijaya Milind Patil, she had claimed to be belonging to “Open Women” category. In further clause she has inadvertently written as “No”. Therefore she had claimed to be belonged to Open Women category. However, in the present case, the Applicant had claimed that she belonged to Open General category. It was further contention of the Petitioner/Applicant before the Administrative Tribunal that nearly 7 to 8 candidates whose certificates were invalid were given an opportunity to produce NCL of current financial year after the corrigendum. So far as their case is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly observed that, those 7 to 8 candidates had filled in their form from that particular category. But their certificates of NCL were invalid, which subsequently was covered by the corrigendum. Therefore, in their form they had claimed belonging to that particular category and there was no necessity of changing their category. So far as the corrigendum is concerned, the corrigendum merely makes change the last date mentioned in the advertisement for possession of NCL. Therefore, that does not change the nature of category claimed by the present Petitioner.

5 We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned AGP represented by the Respondents. The learned AGP has also filed an affidavit–in–reply on behalf of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, and in the said affidavit– in–reply, the stand taken before the MAT is once again reiterated. In the said affidavit reliance is also placed on two decisions wherein similar issues had arisen before the MAT i.e. in Original Application No.410 of 2012 filed by Mr.Anil Prakash Sarkate, wherein he had prayed for making similar change in form. The said O.A. was dismissed and one another Writ Petition filed by person with Disability being Writ Petition No.8960 of 2021, by Manisha Ramkisan Khandekar has been rejected by this Court on 17 December 2021 holding that subsequent changes in category is impermissible.

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 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.

7 Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned order dated 11th May 2022, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai in Original Application No.396 of 2023. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)