SC: Approaching HC by filing a Writ Petition would not be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in overreaching Rights of Job Candidates (Read Judgement)

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka  directing the appellant Corporation to consider the claim of respondent taking note of the work experience certificate for appointment in accordance with law with a caveat that the order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.

The bench comprising of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi passed judgment in the case titled The Karnataka State seeds Development Corp. Ltd & Anr. v. Smt. H.L. Kaveri &ors.

Brief facts of the case:

The appellant Corporation invited applications for various posts against the backlog vacancies   including two vacancies of Senior Assistant and ten vacancies of Junior Assistant pursuant through an   advertisement apart   from   the academic   and   professional   qualifications,   the   applicant was required to furnish a certificate of work experience of 3 years/2 years in a reputed company for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant. It was   further   indicated   in   the   advertisement   that separate   application   has   to   be   furnished   for   each   post   and incomplete   application   shall   be   rejected   without   assigning   any reasons. It revealed from the record that the respondent had not enclosed the experience certificate of the requisite period along with the application form which was required at the time of submitting the application.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka relied upon the Seema Kumar Sharma case and took note of the statement of facts but was in favor of the respondent and stated that respondent has secured higher marks in the qualifying examination for the post of Senior/Junior Assistant and mere non enclosure of the experience certificate with the application, should not deny her claim of fair consideration for appointment.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of Karnataka High Court and held that, “the Division Bench has committed a manifest error by taking note of the experience certificate to support her claim for appointment without even indicating the post for which her claim could be considered in terms of the advertisement. We would further like to observe that merely because the respondent had approached the High Court by filing of a writ petition, that would not be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in over­reaching the rights of the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment.”

Read the Judgment: