Court dismisses writ petition challenging non-selection due to failure to produce mandatory original certificates on stipulated date.
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Salikameni Pedda Madhu Yadav, who challenged the rejection of his candidature for the post of 'office subordinate' in the District Judiciary of Kurnool District. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to submit the original transfer study certificate on the specified date as per the recruitment notification.
The judgment delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, emphasized the mandatory nature of the recruitment condition which required candidates to produce original certificates on the designated date for verification. The court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with this condition justified the rejection of his candidature.
The petitioner argued that he had submitted a self-attested copy of the document on the due date, September 6, 2023, and attempted to submit the original on September 8, 2023. However, the original was not accepted, leading to his disqualification. The petitioner contended that the condition was not mandatory and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sweety Kumari v. The State of Bihar, which held that non-production of original certificates at the time of interview was not sufficient grounds for rejection when such production was not mandatory.
In response, the counsel for the respondents maintained that the notification clearly stipulated the requirement for original document submission on the specified date, failure of which would result in rejection. They highlighted that the selection process was completed in 2023, and the selected candidates had already assumed their posts.
The High Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, stating that the recruitment condition was indeed mandatory and not directory. The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in challenging the rejection, which was filed two years after the selection process was completed.
The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was lawful and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to stipulated recruitment conditions.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment - Non-production of original certificates on the stipulated date as per mandatory condition in recruitment notification leads to rejection of candidature - Delay in challenging the rejection without sufficient explanation renders the petition unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): Recruitment Process.
