Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Diksha Babanrao Shirsat, challenged an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 19.1.2022, which allowed the Original Application filed by respondent no.5, Priyanka Appasaheb Dongre, and set aside the petitioner's appointment to the post of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Water Supply, Drainage and Sanitary Engineering Services (Class-C). The petitioner and respondent no.5 had applied under the Women (General) category pursuant to an advertisement dated 9.9.2016. The petitioner was selected, while respondent no.5 was placed on the waiting list. The candidates were required to produce documents, including a non-creamy layer certificate, on 5.1.2017. The petitioner did not have the certificate on that date but produced it later, before her appointment was finalized. The Selection Committee accepted the certificate and issued an appointment order in favor of the petitioner. Respondent no.5 challenged this before the Tribunal, contending that the Selection Committee had no power to relax the time for production of the certificate. The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the petitioner's appointment. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, held that the Selection Committee had the power to relax the time for production of the non-creamy layer certificate, especially since the certificate was produced before the actual appointment. The court noted that the Tribunal's order was perverse and based on a misinterpretation of the rules. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order and upheld the petitioner's appointment, directing that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service. The court also observed that respondent no.5, being on the waiting list, had no vested right to appointment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Non-Creamy Layer Certificate - Relaxation of Time - The Selection Committee has the power to relax the time for production of a non-creamy layer certificate, especially when the certificate is produced before the actual appointment and the candidate is otherwise eligible. The Tribunal erred in setting aside the appointment on the ground that the certificate was not produced on the stipulated date. (Paras 10-12) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with an order of the Tribunal if it is perverse or based on a misinterpretation of rules. The Tribunal's order was set aside as it failed to consider the relaxation granted by the Selection Committee. (Paras 4, 12) C) Service Law - Recruitment - Waiting List - A candidate on the waiting list does not acquire a vested right to appointment unless the selected candidate is found ineligible. The Tribunal's order directing appointment of the waiting list candidate was unsustainable. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in setting aside the appointment of a selected candidate who produced the non-creamy layer certificate after the stipulated date but before the actual appointment, and whether the Selection Committee had the power to relax the time for production of such certificate.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 19.1.2022, and upheld the appointment of the petitioner. The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service.
Law Points
- Relaxation of time for production of non-creamy layer certificate
- Selection Committee's power to condone delay
- Interpretation of recruitment rules
- Article 226 jurisdiction over Tribunal orders
