1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR W.P.NO.966 of 2010 Kumari Vrushali V.Mohane ..vs.. The Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2010. Heard Mr.A.S.Kilor, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.S.Jachak, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr.P.B.Patil, Advocate for respondent no.3. Perused the impugned judgment of the grievance Committee. Grievance Committee has found that the petitioner did not supply necessary non-creamy-layer certificate along with her application and in any case till the last date for submission of application. The Committee, therefore, found that respondent no.3, who was having more marks and merit than the petitioner deserved to be selected. Advocate Kilor, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the reservation for woman category is horizontal reservation. Actually at the time of working of that reservation, after the selection in open category and reserved categories was finalized (after complying with vertical reservation), it became clear that the petitioner was being selected as a woman candidate. Hence, at that time need for supplying the non-creamy-layer Certificate arose 2 and it has been supplied. He contends that in advertisement, there is no expressed stipulation calling upon the petitioner to supply such certificate along with her application. He further points out that in advertisement it is no where specifically stated that for M.Com (Marathi) post a woman candidate would be selected. In view of this position, it is contended after getting knowledge of her selection as woman category candidate, the petitioner has supplied necessary non-creamy lawyer certificate. Advocate Patil has invited attention to advertisement. That advertisement expressly requires the non-creamy layer certificate. He further states that the law on the point is well settled and all documents should be supplied till last date for submission of application. According to him, in this situation no case is made out warranting any interference. Advocate Jachak, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2, however, has supported the case of the petitioner. She contends that the horizontal reservation is required to be applied after vertical reservation is over and hence the eligibility for the appointment of the petitioner became clear only on that date and the application to submit non-creamy layer certificate arose. Advocate Kilor relied upon the decision reported in (2008)10 SCC 382 (Shiv Prasad ..vs.. Govt. of India and anr.) particularly in paragraph no.29 to show how horizontal reservation is made applicable. There cannot be any dispute about the mode and manner in which the horizontal reservation is to be applied. It is also apparent that 3 accordingly efforts to extend it in present matter has been made. I find that no exception can be taken to the finding reached by the Grievance Committee in the matter in view of the fact that the horizontal reservation for woman was disclosed in the advertisement. It has appreciated legal position correctly. The advertisement also requires submission of non-creamy layer certificate. The contention that the petitioner became aware of her selection only after stage of vertical reservation expired cannot be accepted. A candidate has to apply for particular post in response to the advertisement and his application, therefore, must be complete in all respects. Here, the petitioner applied for her selection in open category and not as a woman in reserved category for woman. Had she applied for such reserved post for woman, she would have definitely supplied the non- creamy layer certificate. After getting knowledge that she could be selected only if the horizontal reservation is applied, the lacuna was sought to be filled in. The non-creamy layer certificate cannot be allowed to be supplied later on and no different principles of law apply here. I, therefore, find that no case is made out for warranting interference in the matter. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Looking to the nature of the controversy, interim order granted in the matter is continued for period of four weeks more. The said order shall cease to be operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE 4 chute