Gujarat High Court
Chamar Pinalben Ranchhodbhai (Solanki ... vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 27/04/2026
Pronounced On : 01/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12879 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
CHAMAR PINALBEN RANCHHODBHAI (SOLANKI PINALBEN
KETANKUMAR)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARESHKUMAR B TRIVEDI(9926) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BY MANKAD(440) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. K. B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the respondent-State, Mr. U. M. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Mr. B. Y. Mankad, learned advocate for Respondent No. 6, at length.
1.1 RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocates appearing for the respondents waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined of the respective respondents.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
"9(a) to admit this petition and to issue Notice for final disposal on returnable date;
9(b) to direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the Merit-list and in the selection-list at Sr. No.1 as her Merit 60.057 is more than all the candidates named in the impugned merit-list, and to give appointment to the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at at JETPUR-1 ANGANWADI at Vadagam, Tal: Khanpur, Dist:
Mahisagar, pursuant to the Advertisement at Annexure-A and the petitioner's application as per Annexure-B;
9(c) to quash and set aside the impugned illegal action of the Respondents in rejecting the petitioner's application for the post of Anganwadi Worker at JETPUR-1 ANGANWADI at Vadagam, Tal: Khanpur, Dist: Mahisagar, as per Annexure- E;
9(d) to direct that the appointment be given to the petitioner with all the consequential benefits as if the petitioner was given appointment instead of the Resp. No. 6 on 14-9-2020;
9(e) to quash and set aside the impugned actions of the respondents in giving appointment to the Resp. No. 6 herein instead of giving it to the petitioner;
9(f) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to restrain the respondent no. 6 from functioning as Anganwadi Worker at JETPUR-1 ANGANWADI at Vadagam, Tal Khanpur, Dist: Mahisagar, pursuant to the impugned illegal order dtd. 14-9-2020;
9(g) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at JETPUR-1 ANGANWADI at Vadagam, Tal: Khanpur, Dist:
Mahisagar, subject to further orders of this Hon'ble Court;
9(h) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct respondents to keep one post of Anganwadi Worker vacant for the petitioner pursuant to the Advertisement at Annexure-A;
9(i) to direct the Resp. No. 3 DDO to pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner;
9(j) to grant any appropriate and just relief/s."
SHORT FACTS:-
3. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and possesses the educational qualifications of B.A., M.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed. and is eligible / qualified to be appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker. It is further the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Advertisement dated 24.07.2020, the petitioner submitted her application for the post of Anganwadi worker, Jetpur-1 at Vadgam, Taluka - Khanpur, District Mahisagar on 05.08.2020. The petitioner's mark-sheets for all four semesters of M.A. showed Grade/Score. The petitioner obtained the actual marks of all the semesters from the concerned University vide certificate dated 07.08.2020, but was unable to upload the said certificate before the cut-off date, i.e., 13.08.2020, as given in the advertisement.
3.1 It is further stated by the petitioner that due to such difficulty, the petitioner's husband - Ketankumar Babubhai Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Solanki, contacted the helpline number provided in the advertisement for the Mahisagar District and sought guidance for uploading such certificate. As per the Advice from the helpline, such certificate can be produced at the time of document verification, and thus petitioner patiently waited up to publication of the result. The respondent published the merit-list online on 27.08.2020, wherein the name of the petitioner was not reflected, though she is meritorious and would have stood first above respondent No.6 herein.
3.2 Being aggrieved by wrong rejection of her application, the petitioner immediately submitted an online objection/appeal dated 28.08.2020 before the concerned respondent authority. The respondent authority called the petitioner for an oral hearing on 10.09.2020, during which she showed all the requisite documents / certificate dated 07.08.2020. Thereafter, the respondent authority orally informed the petitioner that nothing can be done at present. The appointment order was accordingly issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 14.09.2020.
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of her application, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-
4. Mr. K.B.Pujara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would assiduously submit that due to the technicality, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent, though she is more meritorious than respondent No.6. It is Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined submitted that the petitioner tried to upload the aforesaid certificate dated 07.08.2020 before the cut-off date, but since no such option was provided by the respondent, it could not be uploaded. It is further submitted that the helpline provided by the respondent had advised the petitioner to produce the certificate at the time of document verification; thereby the petitioner did not send the certificate prior to the cut-off date to the respondent.
4.1 Mr. Pujara, learned advocate would further submit that once it was brought to the notice of the respondent authority that the petitioner is more qualified than respondent No.6, merely because the requisite certificate was not uploaded by the petitioner along with her application, it should not be considered a ground for rejecting her candidature. It is submitted that, as per the settled position of law, while considering public employment by the State, merit cannot be compromised for any reason. It is further submitted that technicality cannot supersede justice, and therefore, this Court should exercise its discretionary powers by directing the respondent to consider the aforesaid certificate dated 07.08.2020 and give her appointment.
4.2 Mr. Pujara, learned advocate would also submit that the petitioner is hailing from a village area where the facility for uploading documents is minimal and there was no intention of the petitioner not to comply with the conditions of the advertisement, including those provided in Clause 17 of the advertisement. When it is undisputed that the certificate showing the marks of petitioner in all four semesters of her M.A. examination was issued on Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined 07.08.2020, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of submission of the application, in such circumstances, the respondent ought not to have rejected the application of the petitioner on a hyper-technical ground that it was not uploaded prior to cut-off date.
4.3 To buttress his arguments, Mr. Pujara, learned advocate would rely upon the following decisions:-
I. Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate services Selection Board & Anr. reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754;
II. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Chander Shekher & Anr. reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611.
4.4 Making the above submissions, Mr. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:-
5. Per contra, Mr. Siddharath Rami, learned AGP has vehemently opposed this petition, contending inter alia that once the petitioner failed to upload the requisite certificate along with her application, the rejection of her application cannot be found fault with. It is submitted that all instructions were clearly mentioned in the advertisement and were required to be adhered to by the applicant/petitioner before submitting her application. It is further submitted that as per Clause 17 of the advertisement, it was sine qua non for the petitioner to upload the certificate showing the marks obtained in her M.A. examination. It is undisputed that the petitioner did not upload such certificate, Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined which resulted into rejection of her application as the marks obtained by her in the M.A. examination were not available to the respondent and in that view of the matter, as respondent No.6 was found meritorious, accordingly the appointment was given.
5.1 Mr. Rami, learned AGP would submit that as per the settled position of law, this Court cannot extend the time to submit documents if not submitted as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement. Further, it is submitted that as per settled position of law, this Court cannot rewrite the condition of the advertisement, otherwise, it may cause great hardship and inconvenience to others who had not complied with the condition of the advertisement and not approached this Court. It is also submitted that, in the advertisement itself, it is very specifically written that the candidate is required to follow all the instructions provided in the advertisement and in a case where the applicant does not fulfill any eligibility / condition, the application will be rejected.
5.2 Mr. Rami, learned AGP would further submit that on the website, all information was provided to the public at large as to how submit the application, and it is clearly shown that before submitting /click button of submission of application, the applicant shall go through the details minutely, and any error can be changed at that time. It is clearly mentioned that once the "confirm" button is clicked by the applicant, no change in the application is permissible. It is also submitted that there is no option available to edit the application once it is submitted, and as Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined such, the alleged advice from the helpline would not give any right to the petitioner to say that she is entitled to submit the requisite certificate later in point of time.
5.3 To buttress his arguments, Mr. Rami, learned AGP would rely upon the following decisions:-
I. Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. H.L.Kaveri & Ors. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 58 : 2020 SCC 3 108;
II. Monu Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
rendered in W.P.(C) 4087/2022 & CM Appl.
12180/2022 decided on 18.11.2024; [Neutral citation:- 2024:DHC:8875-DB] III. Smt. Aaradhna Buj Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. rendered in Writ Petition No.39107 of 2024 decided on 21.01.2026 [Neutral citation:- 2026:MPHC-
IND:1944] SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS. 3 - 6:-
6. Mr. U. M. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5, would adopt the arguments so canvassed by Mr. Rami, learned AGP.
6.1 Similarly, Mr. B. Y. Mankad, learned advocate for respondent No. 6 (the appointee), would also adopt the arguments of Mr. Rami, learned AGP, and further submit that once the petitioner failed to submit all requisite certificate along with her application, Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined later she cannot be allowed to complain about the non- consideration of her candidature. It is submitted that the petitioner was required to follow the instructions as provided in the advertisement and, as such, there is no option available to upload any further documents after the submission of the application. Therefore, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the settled position of law, if an error remains at the time of filing an application through an online portal, and the application is rejected on such ground, this Court should not entertain the prayer of such an applicant.
6.2 In support of his submissions, Mr. Mankad, learned advocate would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. - decided on 10.04.2026 (Neutral citation:- 2026 INSC 351).
6.3 Making the above submissions, learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents would request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. No other and further submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS: -
8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is not in dispute that the petitioner applied to the post of Aanganwadi pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.07.2020 issued by Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined respondent, vide her application dated 05.08.2020. The petitioner appears to have uploaded the mark-sheet of all four semesters of her post graduate examination, which did not contain marks obtained by her. It is also undisputed that petitioner did not submit the certificate showing her marks obtained in all four semesters of the M.A. examination when she submitted her application for the post of Aanganwadi worker on 05.08.2020.
8.1 It is pertinent to note that the requisite certificate showing her marks appears to have been received by the petitioner on or after 07.08.2020, as it was issued by the concerned University on 07.08.2020. However, she could not upload the said certificate, as the portal provided no option to upload the document once the application had been submitted.
8.2 As per the advertisement produced at Annexure-A collectively, which shows that the last date for submitting the application was 13.08.2020. It is specifically mentioned in the advertisement that in a case where the mark-sheet shows a grade/score, the requisite certificate must be obtained from the concerned University or College calculating the marks obtained, and such certificate must be uploaded. The instruction in Clause 17 of the aforesaid advertisement and relevant note at the end of instructions read as under:
"(૧૭) જે કિસ્સામાં માર્ક્સશીટમાં ગ્રેડ/સ્કોર દર્શાવેલ હોય તે કિસ્સામાં યુનિવર્સિટી/કોલેજ દ્વારા જારી કરવામાં આવેલ ગ્રેડ/સ્કોરમાંથી ગુણની ગણતરી અથવા યુનિવર્સિટી/કોલેજ પાસેથી જ એ ગણતરી થયેલ માર્ક્સનું પ્રમાણપત્ર/માર્ક્સશીટ ફરજિયાત અપલોડ કરવાનું રહે શે."Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined ઉપરોક્ત સૂચનાઓનું અરજદારે ઓનલાઈન ફોર્મ ભરતી વખતે ફરજીયાત પાલન કરવાનું રહે શે. આમાંથી કોઈપણ લાયકાત/શરતો પૂર્ણ ના થવાથી અરજદારની ઉમેદવારી રદ થવાને પાત્ર ગણાશે Fair translation of said Clause 17 and relevant note at the end of the instructions read as under:
"(17) In cases where the marksheet reflects grades/scores, it shall be mandatory to upload either: (a) the calculation of marks derived from the grade/score as issued by the University/College, or (b) a certificate/marksheet issued by the University/College wherein such calculation of marks has already been carried out."
........The above instructions must be strictly adhered to by the applicant while submitting the online form. Any failure to comply with these clarifications or conditions shall result in the cancellation of the applicant's candidature."
8.3 It is evident from a perusal of the said advertisement/instruction that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to upload the certificate showing her marks in the M.A. examination along with her application, which was indisputably not uploaded with the application. In such event, as per the advertisement, the candidature of the petitioner liable to be rejected by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the application and the documents were required to be submitted online by uploading them through the portal.
8.4 In the midst of the arguments, Mr. Rami, learned AGP has provided the relevant pages of the website wherein all the instructions and guidance were provided. It can be seen from it that before submitting the application, a window for a "draft Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined application" was provided to the applicant to check any error; at that stage, an option was provided to edit the details. Once the applicant clicked the button for "confirmation and submission," no changes could have been made thereafter.
8.5 Thus, as per the instructions provided in the advertisement as well as after going through the portal guidelines referred to by Mr. Rami, learned AGP, it is evident that once the petitioner submitted the application on 05.08.2020, thereafter she could not have uploaded the requisite certificate. Accordingly, her candidature was correctly rejected.
9. The emphasis of Mr. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner, that a meritorious candidate should not be deprived of public employment due to a technicality, such argument cannot be appreciated by this Court, in view of the clear instructions provided in the advertisement. It is a well-settled position of law that once an applicant does not adhere to the instructions provided in the advertisement, this Court cannot direct the respondent to accept such certificates later in point of time, merely because the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.6.
10. The decisions pressed into service by the learned AGP and the private respondents would clearly counter the arguments canvassed by Mr. Pujara.
11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the pertinent observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in the case of Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. (supra), wherein it Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined observed thus:-
"28. Before parting, we would like to observe that in matters of public recruitment, where large number of candidates participate, application forms are submitted online along with the scanned eligibility documents, certificates, etc. Such applications are processed through computer applications/ software and therefore, any error in the application is bound to result in rejection of the candidature. Challenge to such a rejection must not ordinarily be entertained as it could stall expeditious completion of the recruitment process thereby frustrating thousands and lacs of aspirants."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. So far as decisions cited by Mr. Pujara, to buttress his arguments, are concerned, none of the decisions would help the case of the petitioner.
12.1 In the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the facts are not so similar as of the present case. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears that the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court followed its earlier decision in the case of Pushpa Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC Online Del 281, whereby it has directed the State authority to consider the caste certificate of the petitioner concerned, which was not submitted with the application. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court appears to have set aside the said direction and the petitioner concerned approached the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it had approved the view of learned Single Judge. On minute examination of the facts of that case, it is evident that facts of that case and the case relied Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined upon by the learned Single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra) arising out of the same advertisement, which would show that OBC certificate, which was not submitted along with application, could have been submitted before the provisional selection list published by the authority, which is not the case on hand.
12.1.1 It is not laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is delay in submission of any mandated document which necessarily to be submitted along with application, the same can be submitted later in time.
12.2 To better appreciate, I would like to refer few passages of decision of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), which read as under:-
"4. The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder :- The respondent-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "the DSSSB") invited applications for selection to the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi by way of publishing an Advertisement No. 09/2007 in the Newspaper. The last date of submission of the application form in the advertisement for the said post was 21.01.2008. The appellant submitted his application form before the due date and was subsequently issued the admit card to appear in the examination. Having appeared in the examination, he was shortlisted for selection. However, his name did not appear in the final list of selected candidates. On enquiry, he was informed by the concerned official that he was not selected to the post for the reason that he had failed to submit the OBC certificate issued by the appropriate authority along with application form before the last date of submission of application form.Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
6.The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2010, placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Pushpa (supra), wherein the controversy centred around the same advertisement/Notification issued by the same respondent. The learned single Judge observed that the only ground for declining the applications filed by the appellants was that the O.B.C. certificates had been issued and submitted after the cut off date and therefore they were not eligible for appointment to the post. The learned single Judge further held that the respondent did not cite any other authority to distinguish the decision in Pushpa's case (supra) from the facts of the present case. Consequently, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondent to reconsider the application of the appellant and the other aggrieved candidates against the O.B.C. category within a period of one month.
14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra). In that case, the learned single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of O.B.C. category. The learned single judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University & Ors. reported in (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713. The learned single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra) also considered another judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of Tej Pal Singh V. Govt (Nct of Delhi, 1999 SCC Online Del 1092 :
ILR (2000) 1 Del 298, wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the S.C. and S.T. categories could not be rejected Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate.
18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra . The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul (supra) wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14,15,16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SC/ST and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul (supra). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 382 of 2009 is hereby restored."
(Emphasis supplied) 12.3 Thus, it can be seen that the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court, though incidentally related to non-submission of document Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined along with application form by the petitioner concerned but fact remains that such certificate could have been submitted before the date of publication of provisional select-list and in that peculiar facts and circumstances and emphasizing that object of reservation in the public employment cannot be frustrated on erroneous ground by the authority, then following binding decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 supp (3) SCC 217 and other such decisions, has set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court.
13. Furthermore, in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), the facts are converse to the case on hand, inasmuch as, the applicants concerned who had not cleared B.E. (Civil) examination at the time of submitting their application, but prior to the date of interview, they were allowed to sit for the interview and having found meritorious, got selected as Junior Engineer by the concerned State authority. Considering Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules and applying such Rule to the facts of that case, in peculiar facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court did not disturb the appointment of such applicants who possess the requisite qualification subsequent to the filing of the application. It has been held that by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get best talents available. It was considered to be in the best public interest as the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification.
14. So far as case on hand is concerned, it completely stands on a Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined different footing, inasmuch as indisputably, it is a case of selection of Aanganwadi worker without holding any interview. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the post for which the petitioner applied, i.e., Aanganwadi workers, who are working to look after minor children coming in the Aaganwadi. As per the advertisement, the applicant possessing a 12th Std. qualification can apply for the post of Aaganwadi worker. Merely because the petitioner possesses a higher qualification like M.A., B.Ed, it cannot be said that by "compromising merit," the appointment was given to respondent No.6.
15. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Madhu Kant Ranjan & Anr. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 141, wherein it has been clearly laid down that the applicant has to comply with all conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein. It is further held that only those documents, which are required to be submitted as per advertisement, have to be considered and any document which is presented after the cut-off date, the same cannot be considered by the authority. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision read as under:-
"10. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Judge specifically observed [Madhu Kant Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2009 SCC OnLine Pat 1684] that there is no pleading in the writ petition that the petitioner had annexed his NCC 'B' certificate along with the original application. Once, it is found that Respondent 1 -- original writ petitioner did not Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined submit the photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate along with the original application which was the requirement as per the advertisement and the cut-off date as per the advertisement was 22-2-2004 and he produced the same after the physical test on 15-1-2007, the appointing authority rightly held that he shall not be entitled to additional five marks of NCC 'B' certificate. Though in the select list dated 8-9-2007, he was awarded 17 marks, which included five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate, the appointing authority disagreed with the same on the ground that as photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate was not produced along with his application form, which was the requirement as per the advertisement, he shall not be entitled to five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate. Therefore, when a decision was taken on the representation made by Respondent 1 -- original writ petitioner which was pursuant to the earlier order [Madhu Kant Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2009 SCC OnLine Pat 1684] passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being CWJC No. 5431 of 2008, the authority rightly refused to allot/award five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate.
11. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those documents, which are submitted along with the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when Respondent 1 -- original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate along with the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC 'B' certificate. In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to appoint Respondent 1 -- original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 8-9-2007 Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined and allotting five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Likewise, the similar view is also expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.L.Kaveri & Ors. (supra), which reads thus:-
"14. It remains undisputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of which reference has been made that the first respondent had not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11- 2013 for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reasons which although was disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.
15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision- making process while rejecting the application of the first respondent for non-fulfilment of the necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, in view of the above, it is now well-settled that whenever any mandatory instructions are not followed / adhered to by the applicant as provided in the advertisement, such application cannot be entertained. Nowadays, as all recruitment processes are conducted by the respondent - State and its Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined instrumentalities via online portals; therefore, the applicant is required to carefully fill up the form and upload the requisite documents to a portal. In this digital era, the applicant must take due care before submitting the application with the requisite documents, failing which, the applicant cannot later be allowed to cry foul.
18. In light of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner did not upload the requisite certificate showing her marks obtained in the M.A. examination at the time of submitting her application, which was sine qua non, as per the advertisement, her candidature requires to be rejected and same is correctly rejected by the respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the arguments of Mr. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner.
CONCLUSION:-
19. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons and conclusion, the present petition deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:41:33 IST 2026