The requirement for a project-affected person certificate to be in the candidate's name is mandatory for application validity, and late submission does not retroactively validate the application.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees dismissing her suit. The plaintiff had prayed for a declaration that she be held eligible for the post of ‘Supervisor’ pursuant to the advertisement dated 5th March 2010 (‘Advertisement’) published by defendant nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff prayed for directing defendants nos. 1 and 2 to appoint her to the post of ‘Supervisor’ pursuant to the selection process held as per the Advertisement. The plaintiff further prayed for a restraining order against defendant nos. 1 and 3 from appointing defendant no. 4 to the post of ‘Supevisor’. Defendant no. 4 is the candidate selected by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no. 4 was appointed to the post of ‘Supervisor (Woman)’; hence, by way of amendment, the plaintiff challenged the order dated 21st July 2011, appointing defendant no. 4.

Brief Facts:

2. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 is Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, through the Chief Executive Officer. Defendant no. 3 is the State of Maharashtra, and defendant no. 4 is the candidate selected and appointed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 to the post of Supervisor in the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement.

3. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 13th December 2016:

(i) Whether the application of the respondent no.4 could have been treated as valid though there was no certificate of the project affected person having transferred in her name on the date of application filed by her on or before the cut-off date?

(ii) Whether filing of the certificate of project affected person by respondent no.4 transferred in her name after the cut-off date would revalidate the application with retrospective effect?

4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the following dates and events relevant to deciding the controversy in the matter:

(a) 5th March 2010: The District Selection Committee and Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad and the District Selection Committee and District Collector, Kolhapur, published an advertisement in the newspaper to recruit Anganwadi Supervisor for the women category. The dispute in the present Second Appeal is with reference to one post reserved for the project-affected person (‘PAP’).

(b) 20th March 2010: The appellant submitted an application along with a certificate in her name as PAP. The appellant also submitted all the relevant documents as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

(c) 25th March 2010: On the last date of submitting the application, respondent no. 4 submitted her application.

(d) 2nd May 2010: The written examination was scheduled as per the advertisement.

(e) 25th May 2010: Certificate of PAP in the name of respondent no. 4’s husband was transferred in the name of respondent no. 4.

(f) 6th June 2010: The written examination was conducted.

(g) 8th June 2010: Interviews of the eligible candidates were conducted.

(h) 8th June 2010: Final results were declared, respondent no. 4 was selected, and the appellant’s name was kept on the waiting list.

(i) 20th July 2010: The appellant made an application seeking cancellation of respondent no.4’s appointment and requested to appoint the appellant on the post reserved for PAP.

(j) 2nd August 2010 and 30th August 2010: The appellant issued a reminder making a similar request to respondents nos. 1 to 3.

(k) 9th September 2010: Respondent no. 2 issued a reply justifying the appointment of respondent no.4.

(l) 25th October 2010: The appellant instituted a suit for a declaration regarding her eligibility and for an injunction restraining respondents nos. 1 and 2 from appointing respondent no. 4.

(m) 6th January 2011: Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed the written statement and denied the suit claim.

(n) 21st July 2011: Respondent nos. 1 and 2 issued an appointment letter to respondent no. 4, appointing her