Recruitment committees not obligated to consider certificates submitted after application, to avoid prejudicing candidates who complied with document submission requirements timely.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i. Quash and set aside the action of the respondents in not awarding marks to the petitioner for her land-holding certificate during the selection process for the post of Clerk (HI) under the Special Recruitment Drive.
ii. Quash and set aside the appointment order dated 17.07.2025 of respondent No.3.
iii. Direct the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner by awarding due marks for land holding in accordance with the applicable recruitment criteria and to re-draw the final merit list accordingly.
iv. Direct the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post of Clerk (HI) if she is found to be higher in merit upon correct computation of marks.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner participated in the process initiated by the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, vide Annexure P-1, dated 02.07.2022, to fill up posts mentioned therein, including two posts of Clerk. The drive was to fill up the posts from amongst persons with disability. According to the petitioner, in terms of the evaluation criteria contained in the advertisement, the petitioner was entitled for one mark, as she was falling within the definition of a “landless family/family having land less than one hectare”, but one mark was wrongly not granted in her favour, which had resulted in her not being selected against the post in issue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of Annexure P-1, one post of Clerk was reserved for Deaf and hard of hearing category and one post was reserved for Locomotor disability category. The petitioner had applied under the Deaf and hard of hearing category. Learned counsel further submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner had appended the requisite documents demonstrating that she qualified as a candidate falling under the category of “landless family”, yet the respondents erroneously did not grant one mark to her on this count, which had resulted in her non-selection. Learned counsel also submitted that as the non-selection of the petitioner was totally arbitrary, the petition be allowed and the selection of the candidate, i.e., the private respondent, be held to be bad and respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel made this prayer on the contention that if one mark is added to the present score of the petitioner, then her score comes to 14.4, which will be more than the score of the selected candidate, who secured 14.14 marks.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General took the Court through the reply filed by the respondents-State and submitted that when the credentials of the petitioner were scrutinized by the Special Selection Committee, it was found during verification that the petitioner had not attached any landless certificate issued by the competent Authority with her application form at the time of applying for post in issue and on this count, the subsequent submission of said certificate by her at a belated stage before the Selection Committee, was not taken into consideration, as it would have prejudiced other qualified and eligible candidates, who had submitted all the requisite documents/certificates along-with the application. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Selection Committee acted in a fair manner and