Delay In Filing Documents

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Adv. R. S. Agrawal 

 

 

 

IN THE judgement of the case- Mrs. Shaila Tanaji Patil v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) & Others, delivered on February 14, 2024, Justice Atul Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain, at the Bombay High Court have relied upon ratio of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case – Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service Commission –(2017) 11 SCC 276. The ratio of the said Supreme Court decision is that if a candidate is otherwise found to be meritorious and merely because there is some delay in filing the documents in support of his /her educational qualification which was filed before the date of his selection, then such a candidate should not be considered ineligible at the time of deciding names for selection for the post. In the opinion of the HC the ratio of this decision squarely applies to the facts of this petitioner’s case inasmuch as the petitioner and the respondents were in possession of the sports certificate of February 27, 2010 much prior to the date of the application form, verification certificate of the document of February 27, 2010 was filed at the time of interview and therefore, since the same was available much before the selection date and otherwise the petitioner was found to be meritorious, “we” (the HC) see no reason why the petitioner should not have been considered for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector.

 

Through this petition, the petitioner had challenged an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) of April 18, 2022 dismissing the petitioner’s Original Application by holding that the “Sports Verification Certificate” was not filed by the petitioner with the respondents along with the application and therefore, she cannot be considered for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector. The petitioner, who was already serving as a Police Constable being selected from the Open Sports Category based on Sports Certificate as well as Verification Report of August 30, 2010 for last many years, applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector pursuant to an advertisement of April 26, 2017, issued by the respondents. Through her letter of March 27, 2019, addressed to the respondents, the petitioner informed the them, that at the time of interview, all the documents including the ‘Sports Verification Certificate’ were submitted and verified by the respondents. On April 1, 2019, the petitioner was informed that since she did not submit ‘Sports Verification Certificate’ along with the application as per the Government Resolution of April 1, 2016, she was not considered for the said post in the ‘Sports Category’ although she had scored aggregate of 183 marks in physical training test, main exam and interview.

 

The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Tribunal challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents. The Tribunal, through its order of April 18, 2022 dismissed the O.A. by relying on clauses 4.5, 4.8 and 8.8 of the advertisement. With this backdrop the petitioner had approached the High Court. The HC has held that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner, observing that admittedly, the petitioner was already employed as a Police Constable, much before the publication of the advertisement on April 26, 2017, under the ‘Sports Category’ which was based on the certificate issued by the Association of Indian Universities on February 27, 2010. This certificate was already in possession of the petitioner at the time of making the application for the post of Police Sub-Inspector. This certificate is also on the record of the respondents since based on this very certificate she was selected for the post of Police Constable. It is this very certificate which was verified and confirmed by the respondents on October 3, 2018, pursuant to such application made for such verification by the petitioner on August 13, 2018.

 

Clauses 4.6 & 4.8 of the advertisement requires a candidate to obtain a certificate prior to the date of the application. In this case, the certificate of February 27, 2010 was already obtained by the petitioner not only before the date of the application for the post, but it was also on record of the respondents on the date of the application. On October 3, 2018, it was only verification of the said certificate which was done by the respondents and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not complied with the Clauses 4.6 or 4.8 of the advertisement which requires obtaining /holding of the certificate on the date of application. The petitioner was called for interview on October 8, 2018 and on the same day, her physical training test was also carried out. Admittedly, at the time of interview, the petitioner had submitted all the documents including the ‘Sports Verification Certificate’ of October 3, 2018 to the respondents for verification. There is no denial on this aspect. The marks given by the MPSC to the petitioner for the interview is also recorded in the letter of April 10, 2019. In the HC’s view, on a harmonious reading of Clauses 4.6, 4.8 and 8.8 of the advertisement, if a candidate already held a sports certificate which is dated much prior to the date of making the application and on the basis of such a certificate, a candidate was already selected and serving as a Police Constable much prior to the date of making the application and at the time of interview, verification of such certificate is submitted to the respondents and no fault or discrepancy is found thereon, then it cannot be said that the petitioner did not possess the certificate on the date of making the application.

 

This harmonious reading of these Clauses of the advertisement would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has complied with the condition of ‘obtaining the certificate ‘specified in the advertisement and therefore, the Tribunal and the respondents were not justified in not considering the petitioner for the post of Police Sub-Inspector. The High court has quashed and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on April 18, 2022. The petitioner shall be treated as eligible for appointment as a Police Sub-Inspector in accordance with the advertisement in question. However, applying the principle of not having actually performed the duties of the said post , the Court has held that such appointment be made on notional basis without any monetary benefits for the period up to the date of her actual appointment pursuant to this order within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.