Bombay High Court
Manish Kumar Verma Soln Of Fulan ... vs Union Of India Thou General ... on 23 February, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
8 wp964-23
Pdp
BASAVRAJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GURAPPA
PATIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
PATIL
Date: 2023.02.24
20:25:52 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 964 OF 2023
Manish Kumar Verma Son of Fulan
Prasad Verma ..... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Vicky A. Nagrani for petitioner.
Mr. R. R. Shetty for respondents.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 23, 2023
P.C.
1. The petitioner had filled in application pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the respondents for filling in Group "D"
posts. The petitioner was not issued with any letter of appointment.
It is the case of the petitioner that he participated in the selection
process. The petitioner filed Original Application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumabi (hereinafter "the
Tribunal", for short). The same is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the
present writ petition.
2. Mr. Nagrani, learned advocate for the petitioner strenuously
contends that the petitioner had uploaded the matric certificate to
substantiate his date of birth. However, the respondents misplaced
it. The Tribunal also fell in error in not accepting the same.
8 wp964-23
According to the learned advocate, the petitioner had mentioned in
the application that he is annexing matric certificate. The said
application was accepted. The petitioner was also permitted to
participate in the selection process. The medical of the petitioner
was also conducted. That would imply that he had cleared all the
stages of the selection process and abruptly when the time came to
issue appointment order to him, the respondents contend that he
had not annexed the matric certificate. The learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the
case put-forth by the petitioner in its correct perspective. The
learned advocate, in alternate, submits that even otherwise on such
a technical ground, the candidature of the petitioner ought not to
have been rejected. The learned advocate placed reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs.
Chairman, JEE & Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 and also on the
decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the
case of R. Vidhya vs. The Secretary, Tamilnadu Public Service
Commission, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 6120.
3. We have heard the learned advocate for the respondents, who
submits that the petitioner has failed to annex any certificate
substantiating his age. There was no document to conclude about the
age of the petitioner annexed with the application. The same is an
essential document. The minimum and maximum age is prescribed
in the advertisement. For the said purpose, the document
substantiating the proof of age is mandatory.
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
advocates for the parties. We have also gone through the judgment
delivered by the Tribunal.
5. There was no document worth the name produced by the
petitioner to substantiate his age. The maximum age was
8 wp964-23
prescribed. The document demonstrating the proof of age is an
essential document. The eligibility of the petitioner is also depending
upon the age.
6. In a case of R. Vidhya (supra), the learned Single Judge had
held that a document which is not an essential certificate for
entertaining the application, cannot be a ground for rejecting the
candidature of the candidate. In the present case, the document in
support of his age is an essential document.
7. In a case of Dolly Chhanda (supra), the Apex Court observed
that, "the general rule is that while applying for any course of study
or a post, a person must posses the eligibility qualification on the last
date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in
application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express
provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard
i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by
the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary
certificates, degrees or marksheets. These are documents in the
nature of proof of holding of particular qualifications." The Apex
Court further observed that every infraction of the rule relating to
submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of
candidature". In the said case, the Apex Court observed that the
appellant therein belonged to the reserved MI category. She came
from a very humble background and the Zilla Sainik Board issued
the first certificate on 29th June, 2003.
8. In the present case, the Tribunal had called for the original
record from Respondents. After perusing the record, it came to the
conclusion that the petitioner has not produced any document
substantiating the proof of his age. The document that the petitioner
did not produce was an essential document.
9.
8 wp964-23
10. In light of that, no interference is called for. The writ petition is
dismissed. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
