1. Recruitment for assistant posts — Mandatory experience certificate requirement — Application rejected for non-enclosure of certificate — Challenge to rejection. (Para 2 , 4 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
THE KARNATAKA STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SMT. H.L. KAVERI & ORS. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 344 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP(Civil) No. 9394 of 2019)
Decided on : 21-01-2020
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Guatam, Sakshi Gaur, Khushboo Aggarwal, Sorabh Dahiya, Vibhu Sharma, Nipun Sharma, Garvita, Advocate Anmol Mehta, Advocates
For the Respondent:S. N. Bhat, C.B. Gururaj, Pramit Chhetri, K.P. Singh, Advocate, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Chinmay Deshpande, Anirudh Sanganeria, Advocates
For the Appellant :Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Guatam, Sakshi Gaur, Khushboo Aggarwal, Sorabh Dahiya, Vibhu Sharma, Nipun Sharma, Garvita, Advocate Anmol Mehta, Advocates
For the Respondent:S. N. Bhat, C.B. Gururaj, Pramit Chhetri, K.P. Singh, Advocate, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Chinmay Deshpande, Anirudh Sanganeria, Advocates
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment has to be made strictly in terms of stipulations made in advertisement.
Appointment has to be made strictly in terms of stipulations made in advertisement.
Subject
Employment Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES UNFILLED VACANCIES RESERVED FOR THE PERSONS BELONGING TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES SPECIAL RECRUITMENT RULES: R.6
KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES UNFILLED VACANCIES RESERVED FOR THE PERSONS BELONGING TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES SPECIAL RECRUITMENT RULES: R.6
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment – Work experience – Even if it is considered that there is a reasonable justification for which certificate could not have been enclosed by 1st respondent along with application, there are several other candidates who have obtained higher percentage in qualifying examination compared to 1st respondent whose applications have been rejected in view of not enclosing of self-attested documents – No error committed by Corporation in its decision making process while rejecting application of 1st respondent for non-fulfilment of necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along with application as required in terms of advertisement – Merely because 1st respondent had approached High Court by filing of a writ petition, that would not be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution in overreaching rights of candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment – Judgment of High Court set aside. [Rule 6 of Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001] (Paras 14, 15, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-Corporation invited applications for various posts against the backlog vacancies including two vacancies of Senior Assistant and ten vacancies of Junior Assistant pursuant to an advertisement dated 11th November, 2013.Instant appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka dated 1st February, 2019 directing appellant-Corporation to consider claim of 1st respondent taking note of the work experience certificate for appointment in accordance with law with a caveat that the order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
Findings of Court:
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 1st respondent for non-fulfilment of necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of advertisement dated 11th November, 2013.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: Experience is a mandatory eligibility condition; uniform rejection of incomplete applications. Respondent: Non-enclosure was a bonafide mistake; selection based on marks. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Rejection for non-enclosure of mandatory experience certificates as per advertisement is valid; uniform application of rules prevents preferential treatment for specific candidates. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Non-fulfillment of mandatory eligibility conditions specified in a recruitment advertisement justifies rejection of applications; writ jurisdiction cannot overreach the rights of eligible candidates. (Para 14 , 17 )
5. Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court set aside. (Para 18 )
6. Can an application be rejected for failing to enclose a mandatory experience certificate required by the advertisement?
Yes. If the advertisement specifies that experience certificates are required and that incomplete applications are liable for rejection, the employer is justified in rejecting applications that fail to meet these eligibility conditions. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 )
7. Does high merit in qualifying examinations override the failure to meet mandatory eligibility criteria in recruitment?
No. High marks in qualifying examinations do not entitle a candidate to be considered if they fail to fulfill the mandatory eligibility requirements, such as submitting required certificates, specified in the advertisement. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Can writ jurisdiction under Article 226 be used to relax mandatory recruitment conditions for a specific candidate?
No. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to overreach the rights of candidates who were otherwise eligible and followed the prescribed application process. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT
Ajay Rastogi, J.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 1st February, 2019 directing the appellant-Corporation to consider the claim of 1st respondent taking note of the work experience certificate for appointment in accordance with law with a caveat that the order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell relevant for the purpose are that the appellant-Corporation invited applications for various posts against the backlog vacancies including two vacancies of Senior Assistant and ten vacancies of Junior Assistant pursuant to an advertisement dated 11th November, 2013. Apart from the academic and professional qualifications, the applicant was required to furnish a certificate of work experience of 3 years/2 years in a reputed company for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant. It was further indicated in the advertisement that separate application has to be furnished for each post and incomplete application shall be rejected without assigning any reasons. The 1st respondent applied for both the posts, i.e. Senior Assistant and Junior Assistant on a separate application, and indeed was holding academic/professional qualification but it reveals from the record that she had not enclosed the experience certificate of the requisite period along with the application form which was required at the time of submitting the application.
3. The select list of the candidates was to be prepared in terms of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Civil Services(Unfilled Vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter being referred to as "Rules") based on the percentage of marks secured by the candidate in the qualification examination taking into consideration the reservation for women, ex-servicemen, physically handicapped and project displaced persons in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.
4. The 1st Respondent is a women and member of Scheduled caste category and secured 65.43% of marks in the qualifying examination and still when her name was not included in the select list, made representation but when failed to get satisfactory response, she approached the High Court by filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In reply to the writ petition filed by the Corporation, the specific case pleaded was that the 1st respondent had applied for both the posts of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant, but she failed to enclose the experience certificate which was the condition of eligibility in terms of the advertisement and at the stage of scrutiny, her application was rejected without assigning any reason. For satisfaction of the Court, the learned Single Judge of the High Court called for the original records and recorded a finding in paragraph 7 of the judgment that experience certificate was not enclosed by her with the application form which is reproduced hereunder:-
"On perused of the original records, it is clear that petitioner has not enclosed experience certificate while applying to the posts. This is evident from the application submitted, which contains other enclosures except the experience certificate. The scrutiny of application that has been made and maintained by respondent-Corporation reveals that several applications have been rejected noting the reasons for such rejection. The reason for rejecting the application filed by petitioner is stated as 'non-enclosure of experience certificate'. Incidentally, it has to be noticed that other candidates who had not enclosed the experience certificate also suffered similar consequences".
5. The Single Judge of the High Court, taking note of the factual statement, was not inclined to consider the claim of the 1st respondent and accordingly dismissed
