Strict Compliance with Advertisement Terms Mandatory - Submission of PAP Certificate Along with Application is a Mandatory Requirement: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling Justice Gauri Godse of the Bombay High Court quashed the appointment of Sou. Maya Purushottam Dhekele  to the post of "Supervisor (Women)" reserved for Project Affected Persons (PAP), under an advertisement issued on March 5, 2010, by the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. The Court held that the mandatory requirement under Condition No. 7 of the advertisement to submit a valid PAP certificate in the candidate’s name by the cut-off date was not fulfilled, thereby rendering Respondent No. 4's application invalid.

The judgment sets aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court and directs the Zilla Parishad to reconsider the application of the appellant, Smt. Bharati Tukaram Patil, for the post in accordance with the advertisement terms. The Court emphasized that the submission of the PAP certificate is not an empty formality but a critical eligibility requirement to ensure fairness and prevent misuse.

PAP Certificate Submission is Mandatory for Eligibility

The Court held that as per Section 5(c) and Section 6(c) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, the issuance and transfer of a PAP certificate to the nominee of the affected person is a process governed by law. "The submission of a PAP certificate along with the application is a mandatory requirement, as clearly stated in Condition No. 7 of the advertisement. Failure to do so renders the application invalid," the Court observed.

In the present case, Respondent No. 4 did not submit a PAP certificate in her name by the deadline for filing applications (March 25, 2010). Instead, the PAP certificate in her name was issued on May 25, 2010, long after the cut-off date. The Court stated, “Condition No. 7 is self-explanatory and self-operative—it requires the submission of a PAP certificate in the applicant's name by the application deadline. Accepting an application without such compliance would defeat the purpose of fair competition.”

"Eligibility Must Be Tested on the Cut-off Date" - Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedents

The judgment relied on several Supreme Court rulings, reiterating that eligibility criteria must be strictly tested as on the cut-off date specified in the advertisement. The Court cited Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan (AIR 1993 SC 1362), where it was held that eligibility must be determined on the date of application and not retrospectively. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 906), the Court emphasized that retrospective validation of eligibility through later submissions is impermissible.

“The principle that eligibility must be tested on the cut-off date is sacrosanct in ensuring that the recruitment process is fair, impartial, and consistent with the advertisement terms,” the judgment noted.

The Court took strong exception to the Zilla Parishad's inconsistent application of rules. It noted that a candidate listed at Serial No. 52 in the disqualified list was rejected solely for not submitting a PAP certificate in their name. However, Respondent No. 4 was allowed to proceed despite the same deficiency. “Such differential treatment clearly indicates favoritism, as the Zilla Parishad had no power to relax Condition No. 7 or extend the time for submitting the PAP certificate,” the Court remarked.

The Court further pointed out that Respondent No. 4’s father-in-law, the original PAP, was a teacher, and her husband was an Animal Husbandry Officer, both working under the Zilla Parishad. “In light of the evidence, it is difficult to justify how Respondent No. 4’s application was treated as valid when no PAP certificate was submitted in her name on the cut-off date,” the Court observed.

Late Submission of Certificate Cannot Validate an Application Retrospectively

The Court emphasized that the issuance of a PAP certificate in Respondent No. 4’s name after the cut-off date and its subsequent submission could not retrospectively validate her application. Justice Gauri Godse clarified, “The issuance and submission of a PAP certificate after the cut-off date would undermine the sanctity of the recruitment process and violate the principles of equality and fairness.”

The Court held that Respondent No. 4's application was invalid on the date of submission, as it lacked a valid PAP certificate in her name. Consequently, her selection and appointment were quashed.

The Court also rejected Respondent No. 4's objection regarding the maintainability of the suit due to the lack of a statutory notice under Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. It held that the recruitment process was conducted under a government notification, not the Zilla Parishad Act, and therefore the objection was vague and without merit. “The trial court and first appellate court rightly concluded that the suit was maintainable,” Justice Godse noted.

The Court directed the Zilla Parishad to reconsider the appellant’s application for the post of Supervisor (Women) reserved for PAP as per the advertisement terms. It stated, “The Zilla Parishad is directed to complete this process in accordance with law and consider the appellant’s application without any further delay.”

This judgment reinforces the principle that recruitment processes must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of advertisements to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary actions. The Court’s observations underscore that mandatory requirements like the submission of a PAP certificate cannot be bypassed or relaxed without violating the fundamental principles of equality and impartiality in public employment.

Date of Decision: January 20, 2025