A recruitment agency must consider a candidate's eligibility based solely on the information submitted at the time of application and cannot accept qualifications disclosed after the recruitment process closure.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Gupta, J.

1. The present special appeal (writ) has been filed, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner-respondent herein was allowed, directing the appellant-State to consider the candidature of the respondent based on his graduation mark-sheet. The Court further directed that, after verification of the graduation mark-sheet and other documents, if the petitioner is found eligible, he shall be accorded appointment within a period of two months.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner had initially filed a writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8447/2018, contending that, as per the advertisement issued for the post of Teacher Grade III, Level-I, in District Banswara, he had secured 64.67% marks in the REET Examination, whereas the cut-off for the General category was 60%. Despite this, he was denied appointment. He further asserted in the writ petition that he could not be disqualified from appointment on the ground of having secured only 44.15% marks in the Senior Secondary School Examination, as he had obtained more than the required cut-off marks in the REET Examination.

3. The appellants, who were the respondents in the said writ petition, filed a reply contending that as per the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, the petitioner did not possess/disclose the requisite qualifications and therefore was not considered for appointment. It was further stated that, according to the minimum qualifications specified in Clause 9.2 of the advertisement, since the petitioner had applied based on his Senior Secondary School Examination qualification along with a two-year diploma in Elementary Education, the minimum required marks in Senior Secondary were 45%. The petitioner, however, did not possess the said qualification as per his own application, and thus was not considered for appointment.

4. The said writ petition remained pending for almost two and a half year and thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 17.12.2020 with the aforesaid liberty. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 279/2021, wherein, instead of providing better particulars, he did not file the advertisement which he had already submitted earlier. It was contended that, inadvertently, he had not mentioned the fact that he was a Graduate which was also one of the qualification for eligibility and therefore, his graduation mark-sheet shall be considered, as he had obtained his Graduation mark-sheet prior to the issuance of the advertisement. Further, he prayed that since he belongs to the OBC category, he may be granted 5% relaxation as provided under the Notification dated 27.03.2011.

5. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.02.2021, directing the appellants to consider the candidature of the respondent based on his graduation mark- sheet, and after verification, if found eligible, to accord appointment to him.

6. Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is without proper appreciation of the factual aspects of the case. He contends that the petitioner had initially filed a writ petition but did not disclose the existence of his graduation mark-sheet in that petition though the petitioner had