Dismissed

Maharashtra Public Service Commission Thr. Secretary v. Kisan Narshi Tadvi

Bombay HC16 Jan 2023WP/445/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission challenging an Administrative Tribunal order. The Tribunal allowed a respondent to correct missing domicile details in his exam application after the initial deadline for fresh applications had passed. The court held that accepting the correction was not overly technical. (Justice S. V. Marne, January 16, 2023)

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No costs.

Maharashtra Public Service Commission Thr. Secretary… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

12-WP-445-2023

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 445 OF 2023

¶5

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2023.01.17 09:57:29 +0530

¶6

Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Thr. Secretary .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Kisan Narshi Tadvi .. Respondent

¶9

Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Akshay Kulkarni for petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Dere a/w Ms. Pooja Mankoji for respondent.

¶11

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶12

DATE: JANUARY 16, 2023

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. The present respondent had filled in application pursuant to the advertisement for the State Civil Services Exam from sports category. The form was filled in on 30^th March, 2022. In the form that was to be filled in, one of the columns was Domicile Details’. The respondent had typed No’ as against Maharashtra Domicile Certificate. The respondent was held ineligible. He filed original application bearing No. 1165 of 2022 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter “the Tribunal”, for short). The Tribunal disposed of the original application by allowing the applicant (respondent herein) to fill up the form for State Service Main Examination with correct information qua Domicile and is further permitted to appear for the Main Examination pursuant to the advertisement dated 19^th September, 2022. The petitioner/MPSC has challenged the said order in the present writ petition.

¶15

¶16

12-WP-445-2023

¶17

2. Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the MPSC strenuously contends that as per Clause 1.2.5.6 of the instructions issued to the candidates, the respondent could not have changed the profile. The respondent was entitled to correct the information by submitting a fresh application and could not have made corrections in the same application as per Clause 1.2.8 of the instructions. The time to submit the fresh application was extended upto 26^th June, 2022. The respondent had filled in the form on 30^th May, 2022. On 1^st June, 2022 the respondent changed his profile. The respondent on the said date could have submitted the fresh application form and could have corrected the mistake committed by him in the application filed on 30^th May, 2022. The Tribunal could not have allowed the original application. The same would be against the mandate of Clause 1.2.5.6 of the instructions issued to the candidates. To substantiate his contention, the learned advocate relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. G. Hemalathaa & Anr ., reported in AIR OnLine 2019 SC 969.

¶18

3. The learned advocate for the respondent submits that the profile was corrected on 1^st June, 2022 and the necessary details of the Domicile Certificate were mentioned. The Tribunal has appreciated the facts on record properly.

¶19

4. In the case of G. Hemalathaa & Anr . (supra), the candidate therein had underlined the answer-sheet with pencil at several places in Law Paper-1. The High Court was also of the opinion that such marking was in clear violation of Instruction 22 (1)(II) of the instructions issued by the Commission which prohibited candidates from using a pencil for any purpose. In that context the Apex Court observed that the instructions have to be followed and strictly adhered to. The discretion exercised by the High Court was in the teeth of the instructions which are binding on the candidates appearing for the examination.

¶20

¶21

12-WP-445-2023

¶22

5. In the present case, the only mistake that the candidate had committed was that in the Maharashtra Domicile Certificate column he had typed `No’. The said application was filled in on 30^th May, 2022. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the candidate could have corrected his profile and on 1^st June, 2022 the present respondent gave his profile and gave the Domicile details in the same. The said profile given by the respondent and updated on 1^st June, 2022, as reproduced by the Tribunal, reads thus: -

¶23

“Domicile Details Maharashtra Domicile Certificate? Yes, Issuing District Nandurbar Domicile Certificate No Available Certificate Number 39501055795 Domicile Issue Date 17/01/2017”

¶24

6. It is also not disputed that as per Instruction 1.2.8 if the candidate has committed some mistakes in the uploaded application form, he could have cancelled the said application and could have uploaded a fresh one upto 26^th June, 2022. The respondent herein on 1^st June, 2022 itself given the details of the Domicile Certificate available with him. The Domicile Certificate was already issued on 17^th January, 2017. The certificate number was also mentioned.

¶25

7. When the candidate is allowed to correct the mistake by submitting fresh application and that too upto 26^th June, 2022, there is no reason why the fresh profile given on 1^st June, 2022 giving details of the Domicile Certificate could not be accepted.

¶26

8. It would be too technical to hold that a candidate could have cancelled the application form wherein mistake was committed and could have submitted the fresh application on or before 26^th June, 2022 but could not have corrected the profile on 1^st June, 2022.

¶27

9. The Tribunal has exercised the discretion in a reasonable manner.

¶28

¶29

12-WP-445-2023

¶30

10. In light of that, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶31

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶32

Maharashtra Public Service Commission Thr. Secretary v. Kisan Narshi Tadvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Public Service Commission Thr. Secretary v. Kisan Narshi Tadvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrath Sukarya Lokhande Vs High Court on Its Own Motion and Ors.

Vishal Sunil Bhadakwad Vs the Chief Officer Barshi Nagar Parishad and Anr.

Prasad Nivrutti Khatale Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shri Siddharth Ashokro Tambe and Anr. Vs the State of Mahahrashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Medical Education and Drugs Dept. and Ors. Vs Raju Dhondiram Akrupe

Bhupendra Pal Singh Vs Mr. Tarun Bajaj, the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Govt. of India and Anr.