Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner finding herself eligible for the same applied and qualified in the written examination. At the time of physical examination she was asked to produce the documents which she produced but thereafter instead of showing the petitioner as selected, she has been shown in the list of non-selected candidates as transpires from the perusal of the impugned list in which, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, at serial no. 3513 it is indicated "FEMALE OUT OF UP, Normalised Marks below Vertical Cut-Off OC of 193.8763".

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that once there is no such condition as indicated in the impugned list i.e. "FEMALE OUT OF UP, Normalised Marks below Vertical Cut-Off OC of 193.8763" so far as it pertains to the petitioner by which her candidature has been rejected, as such the respondents have illegally rejected the candidature of the petitioner and thus he prays for quashing of the said order.

On the other hand Shri Saharsh, learned counsel for respondents, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit, argues that as per Clause 6(c)(1) of the notification dated 16.11.2018 it was specifically provided that the candidate should be in possession of domicile certificate of the year 2018 which should have been issued prior to the last date fixed for receipt of the application, in this case 08.12.2018 meaning thereby the domicile certificate should be between the date 01.01.2018 to 07.12.2018. Shri Saharsh contends that the perusal of the domicile certificate as has been annexed by the petitioner herself, copy of which is part of the annexure 3 to the petition, would indicate that one domicile certificate is dated 22.09.2015 while the other domicile certificate is dated 17.02.2019. Thus both the domicile certificates do not fall within the ambit of clause 6(c)(1) of the advertisement and as such when this fact was discovered, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. This fact has also been indicated in the order that has been issued by the respondents as it is apparent from the perusal of scrutiny sheet as has been filed as annexure CA1 to the counter affidavit. He thus contends that even if a wrong fact has been indicated against the name of the petitioner while issuing the list of unsuccessful candidates the same would not give any right to the petitioner to claim herself as selected candidate.

Thus, it is apparent that the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondents. The mere fact that while issuing the list of unsuccessful candidates so far as the petitioner is concerned it has been indicated "FEMALE OUT OF UP, Normalised Marks below Vertical Cut-Off OC of 193.8763" would not depart from the fact that admittedly the petitioner did not have domicile certificate as per the stipulation contained in clause 6(c)(1) of the advertisement. Even if the Court sets aside the impugned list of unsuccessful candidates so far as it pertains to the petitioner, even then another illegality of the petitioner being ineligible as per clause 6(c)(1) would again arise and thus neither any futile writ can be issued nor any writ can be issued setting aside any illegal order which would give rise to another illegality.