ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer.

“WHEREFOR the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased”

No.4, Ashray Plot, Shiggaon. The ninth respondent is appointed as Anganwadi Helper in the aforesaid Anganvadi Kendra. The petitioner is before the Court calling the said appointment in question on the score that the petitioner is more meritorious than the appointed candidate.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would project the solitary circumstance of merit as is averred in the petition, as his submission.

5. Learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner did not upload the domicile certificate and therefore, a less meritorious candidate was chosen in the absence of domicile certificate. The certificates of the appointed candidate were in order. Therefore, the appointment was made in favour of the appointed candidate.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would join the issue in submission that the petitioner while filing the objections had filed the domicile certificate along with the objections. Therefore, prior to the selection, when it was in place, the respondent competent authority ought to have considered the same.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner in the qualifying examination secured 481 marks which amounts to 76.96%. While the selected candidate, the ninth respondent has secured 386 marks which is close to 90 marks less than the marks secured by the petitioner. The only issue is whether merit can be given a go by on the score that the Cyber Center did not upload the document of domicile certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner on looking at the provisional select list files the objections. The objection reads as follows:

9. To the objections, the document i.e. the domicile certificate is appended. This is an admitted fact. If the domicile certificate was available and not uploaded at the outset, it was brought to the notice of the authority before the final list could be out. The issue whether non-filing of the domicile certificate would take away the merit of a candidate is no longer res integra. Non-uploading of the documents of a meritorious candidate is undoubtedly a curable defect as is held by the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Bijoria v. Delhi subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754, which is followed by this Court in Writ Petition No.102135/2023 disposed on 30.08.2023 concerning these very appointments, i.e. the posts of Anganwadi helper/worker, which reads as follows:

12. The reference made by the counsel for the 5^th respondent to the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench is distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the case at hand without much ado, as the coordinate bench does not consider the judgments rendered on the point by the Apex Court. The Apex Court, in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 has considered this aspect of curable defects being projected as reasons for denial for appointment of candidates. The Apex Court has held as follows:

“14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] . In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories,