Service law: Appointment – A candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority – Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered – Therefore, when respondent No.1-original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: As per the advertisement, the applicants were required to submit the photocopies of all the relevant documents/certificates alongwith the application form and the originals were required to be produced at the time of their appointment before the Selection Council. The original writ petitioner did not produce/submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith his original application. Therefore, in absence of the submission of the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the application, he was not allotted five marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate. However, he submitted the same in the year 2007 after the physical test. Therefore, he filed a writ petition making a grievance that as he had produced/submitted the NCC ‘B’ certificate, he had been denied five additional marks. The Single Judge of the High Court refused to issue any positive direction by observing that there is no pleading in the writ petition in support of his claim that he had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application ANR.
form. The Single Judge also observed that from the pleadings it appears that he submitted the same after the physical test on 15.01.2007, i.e., before the results were published on 26.12.2007. However, when subsequently the instant writ petition was filed, the original writ petitioner came out with a contrary stand that he had produced all the necessary documents including the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith his original application. This is nothing but an afterthought. Having failed to get any positive direction in the earlier writ petition on the ground that there is no pleading that he had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application, he is not entitled to any positive direction and the original writ petitioner cannot be permitted to improve his case in the subsequent litigation, when it was not his case in the earlier round of litigation. [Paras 6, 7][511-D-H; 513-B-D]
Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85 : [2011] 11 SCR 635; Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 58 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.