Holding

The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to upload the mandatory certificate as required by the advertisement justified the rejection of her candidature, and therefore the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate with MA, B.Ed and M.Ed qualifications, applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker through an online advertisement that required uploading a certificate of marks if the mark‑sheet showed grades. She submitted her application on 5‑Aug‑2020 but could not upload the required certificate before the 13‑Aug cut‑off because it was issued only on 7‑Aug and the portal did not allow post‑submission uploads. The State rejected her application and appointed another candidate. The petitioner challenged the rejection under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and Section 226, arguing that merit should outweigh a technical defect. The State contended that the advertisement’s conditions were mandatory and strictly complied with. The Court examined the advertisement, the portal process, and precedent, concluding that the petitioner’s failure to upload the mandatory certificate justified rejection and that the court cannot rewrite the recruitment rules. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Does the rejection of the petitioner's application for not uploading the mandatory certificate violate constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21?
Can the court compel the State to accept a certificate submitted after the advertised cut‑off date despite non‑compliance with the recruitment rules?
Does merit override a clear non‑fulfilment of a mandatory condition in a public recruitment advertisement?
Are the petitioner's reservation rights under the SC category infringed by the technical rejection of her application?
Is the appointment of respondent No.6 lawful in view of the alleged merit of the petitioner?

Subjects

ReservationScheduled CasteMeritPublic recruitmentTechnicalityOnline applicationConstitutional challengeArticles 14,16,19,21,226Anganwadi WorkerAppointment

Judgment

C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

Reserved On : 27/04/2026
Pronounced On : 01/05/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12879 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
CHAMAR PINALBEN RANCHHODBHAI (SOLANKI PINALBEN
KETANKUMAR)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARESHKUMAR B TRIVEDI(9926) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BY MANKAD(440) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. K. B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the respondent-State, Mr. U.
M. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Mr. B.
Y. Mankad, learned advocate for Respondent No. 6, at length.

1.1 RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocates appearing
for the respondents waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf

Page 1 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

of the respective respondents.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21
and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“9(a) to admit this petition and to issue Notice for final
disposal on returnable date;

9(b) to direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name
in the Merit-list and in the selection-list at Sr. No.1 as her
Merit 60.057 is more than all the candidates named in the
impugned merit-list, and to give appointment to the
petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at at JETPUR-1
ANGANWADI at Vadagam, Tal: Khanpur, Dist:
Mahisagar, pursuant to the Advertisement at Annexure-A
and the petitioner's application as per Annexure-B;

9(c) to quash and set aside the impugned illegal action of the
Respondents in rejecting the petitioner's application for the
post of Anganwadi Worker at JETPUR-1 ANGANWADI at
Vadagam, Tal: Khanpur, Dist: Mahisagar, as per Annexure-
E;

9(d) to direct that the appointment be given to the petitioner
with all the consequential benefits as if the petitioner was
given appointment instead of the Resp. No. 6 on 14-9-2020;

9(e) to quash and set aside the impugned actions of the
respondents in giving appointment to the Resp. No. 6 herein
instead of giving it to the petitioner;

9(f) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF
THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to restrain the respondent no.
6 from functioning as Anganwadi Worker at JETPUR-1
ANGANWADI at Vadagam, Tal Khanpur, Dist: Mahisagar,
pursuant to the impugned illegal order dtd. 14-9-2020;

9(g) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF

Page 2 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondents to
give appointment to the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at
JETPUR-1 ANGANWADI at Vadagam, Tal: Khanpur, Dist:
Mahisagar, subject to further orders of this Hon'ble Court;

9(h) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF
THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct respondents to keep
one post of Anganwadi Worker vacant for the petitioner
pursuant to the Advertisement at Annexure-A;

9(i) to direct the Resp. No. 3 DDO to pay the costs of this
petition to the petitioner;

9(j) to grant any appropriate and just relief/s.”

SHORT FACTS:-

3. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and
possesses the educational qualifications of B.A., M.A., B.Ed. and
M.Ed. and is eligible / qualified to be appointed to the post of
Anganwadi worker. It is further the case of the petitioner that
pursuant to the Advertisement dated 24.07.2020, the petitioner
submitted her application for the post of Anganwadi worker,
Jetpur-1 at Vadgam, Taluka - Khanpur, District Mahisagar on
05.08.2020. The petitioner’s mark-sheets for all four semesters of
M.A. showed Grade/Score. The petitioner obtained the actual
marks of all the semesters from the concerned University vide
certificate dated 07.08.2020, but was unable to upload the said
certificate before the cut-off date, i.e., 13.08.2020, as given in the
advertisement.

3.1 It is further stated by the petitioner that due to such
difficulty, the petitioner's husband - Ketankumar Babubhai

Page 3 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

Solanki, contacted the helpline number provided in the
advertisement for the Mahisagar District and sought guidance for
uploading such certificate. As per the Advice from the helpline,
such certificate can be produced at the time of document
verification, and thus petitioner patiently waited up to publication
of the result. The respondent published the merit-list online on
27.08.2020, wherein the name of the petitioner was not reflected,
though she is meritorious and would have stood first above
respondent No.6 herein.

3.2 Being aggrieved by wrong rejection of her application, the
petitioner immediately submitted an online objection/appeal dated
28.08.2020 before the concerned respondent authority. The
respondent authority called the petitioner for an oral hearing on
10.09.2020, during which she showed all the requisite
documents / certificate dated 07.08.2020. Thereafter, the
respondent authority orally informed the petitioner that nothing
can be done at present. The appointment order was accordingly
issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 14.09.2020.

3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of her
application, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-

4. Mr. K.B.Pujara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
would assiduously submit that due to the technicality, the
application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent,
though she is more meritorious than respondent No.6. It is

Page 4 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

submitted that the petitioner tried to upload the aforesaid
certificate dated 07.08.2020 before the cut-off date, but since no
such option was provided by the respondent, it could not be
uploaded. It is further submitted that the helpline provided by the
respondent had advised the petitioner to produce the certificate at
the time of document verification; thereby the petitioner did not
send the certificate prior to the cut-off date to the respondent.

4.1 Mr. Pujara, learned advocate would further submit that once
it was brought to the notice of the respondent authority that the
petitioner is more qualified than respondent No.6, merely because
the requisite certificate was not uploaded by the petitioner along
with her application, it should not be considered a ground for
rejecting her candidature. It is submitted that, as per the settled
position of law, while considering public employment by the State,
merit cannot be compromised for any reason. It is further
submitted that technicality cannot supersede justice, and
therefore, this Court should exercise its discretionary powers by
directing the respondent to consider the aforesaid certificate dated
07.08.2020 and give her appointment.

4.2 Mr. Pujara, learned advocate would also submit that the
petitioner is hailing from a village area where the facility for
uploading documents is minimal and there was no intention of the
petitioner not to comply with the conditions of the advertisement,
including those provided in Clause 17 of the advertisement. When
it is undisputed that the certificate showing the marks of petitioner
in all four semesters of her M.A. examination was issued on

Page 5 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

07.08.2020, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of submission of the
application, in such circumstances, the respondent ought not to
have rejected the application of the petitioner on a hyper-technical
ground that it was not uploaded prior to cut-off date.

4.3 To buttress his arguments, Mr. Pujara, learned advocate
would rely upon the following decisions:-

I. Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate services
Selection Board & Anr. reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754;

II. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Chander Shekher
& Anr. reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611.

4.4 Making the above submissions, Mr. Pujara, learned advocate
for the petitioner would request this Court to allow the present writ
petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:-

5. Per contra, Mr. Siddharath Rami, learned AGP has
vehemently opposed this petition, contending inter alia that once
the petitioner failed to upload the requisite certificate along with
her application, the rejection of her application cannot be found
fault with. It is submitted that all instructions were clearly
mentioned in the advertisement and were required to be adhered
to by the applicant/petitioner before submitting her application. It
is further submitted that as per Clause 17 of the advertisement, it
was sine qua non for the petitioner to upload the certificate
showing the marks obtained in her M.A. examination. It is
undisputed that the petitioner did not upload such certificate,

Page 6 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

which resulted into rejection of her application as the marks
obtained by her in the M.A. examination were not available to the
respondent and in that view of the matter, as respondent No.6 was
found meritorious, accordingly the appointment was given.

5.1 Mr. Rami, learned AGP would submit that as per the settled
position of law, this Court cannot extend the time to submit
documents if not submitted as per the condition stipulated in the
advertisement. Further, it is submitted that as per settled position
of law, this Court cannot rewrite the condition of the
advertisement, otherwise, it may cause great hardship and
inconvenience to others who had not complied with the condition
of the advertisement and not approached this Court. It is also
submitted that, in the advertisement itself, it is very specifically
written that the candidate is required to follow all the instructions
provided in the advertisement and in a case where the applicant
does not fulfill any eligibility / condition, the application will be
rejected.

5.2 Mr. Rami, learned AGP would further submit that on the
website, all information was provided to the public at large as to
how submit the application, and it is clearly shown that before
submitting /click button of submission of application, the
applicant shall go through the details minutely, and any error can
be changed at that time. It is clearly mentioned that once the
"confirm" button is clicked by the applicant, no change in the
application is permissible. It is also submitted that there is no
option available to edit the application once it is submitted, and as

Page 7 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

such, the alleged advice from the helpline would not give any right
to the petitioner to say that she is entitled to submit the requisite
certificate later in point of time.

5.3 To buttress his arguments, Mr. Rami, learned AGP would
rely upon the following decisions:-

I. Karnataka State Seeds Development
Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs.
H.L.Kaveri & Ors. reported in 2020 SCC
Online SC 58 : 2020 SCC 3 108;

II. Monu Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
rendered in W.P.(C) 4087/2022 & CM Appl.
12180/2022 decided on 18.11.2024; [Neutral
citation:- 2024:DHC:8875-DB]

III. Smt. Aaradhna Buj Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. rendered in Writ
Petition No.39107 of 2024 decided on
21.01.2026 [Neutral citation:- 2026:MPHC-
IND:1944]

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS. 3 - 6:-

6. Mr. U. M. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 to
5, would adopt the arguments so canvassed by Mr. Rami, learned
AGP.

6.1 Similarly, Mr. B. Y. Mankad, learned advocate for respondent
No. 6 (the appointee), would also adopt the arguments of Mr.
Rami, learned AGP, and further submit that once the petitioner
failed to submit all requisite certificate along with her application,

Page 8 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

later she cannot be allowed to complain about the non-
consideration of her candidature. It is submitted that the petitioner
was required to follow the instructions as provided in the
advertisement and, as such, there is no option available to upload
any further documents after the submission of the application.
Therefore, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that as per the settled position of law, if an error
remains at the time of filing an application through an online
portal, and the application is rejected on such ground, this Court
should not entertain the prayer of such an applicant.

6.2 In support of his submissions, Mr. Mankad, learned advocate
would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. -
decided on 10.04.2026 (Neutral citation:- 2026 INSC 351).

6.3 Making the above submissions, learned advocates appearing
for the respective respondents would request this Court to dismiss
the present writ petition.

7. No other and further submissions are made by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties.

ANALYSIS AND REASONS: -

8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is not in
dispute that the petitioner applied to the post of Aanganwadi
pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.07.2020 issued by

Page 9 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

respondent, vide her application dated 05.08.2020. The petitioner
appears to have uploaded the mark-sheet of all four semesters of
her post graduate examination, which did not contain marks
obtained by her. It is also undisputed that petitioner did not
submit the certificate showing her marks obtained in all four
semesters of the M.A. examination when she submitted her
application for the post of Aanganwadi worker on 05.08.2020.

8.1 It is pertinent to note that the requisite certificate showing
her marks appears to have been received by the petitioner on or
after 07.08.2020, as it was issued by the concerned University on
07.08.2020. However, she could not upload the said certificate, as
the portal provided no option to upload the document once the
application had been submitted.

8.2 As per the advertisement produced at Annexure-A
collectively, which shows that the last date for submitting the
application was 13.08.2020. It is specifically mentioned in the
advertisement that in a case where the mark-sheet shows a
grade/score, the requisite certificate must be obtained from the
concerned University or College calculating the marks obtained,
and such certificate must be uploaded. The instruction in Clause 17
of the aforesaid advertisement and relevant note at the end of
instructions read as under:

“(૧૭) જે કિસ્સામાં માર્ક્સશીટમાં ગ્રેડ/સ્કોર દર્શાવેલ હોય તે
કિસ્સામાં યુનિવર્સિટી/કોલેજ દ્વારા જારી કરવામાં આવેલ
ગ્રેડ/સ્કોરમાંથી ગુણની ગણતરી અથવા યુનિવર્સિટી/કોલેજ પાસેથી
જ એ ગણતરી થયેલ માર્ક્સનું પ્રમાણપત્ર/માર્ક્સશીટ ફરજિયાત
અપલોડ કરવાનું રહે શે.”

Page 10 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

ઉપરોક્ત સૂચનાઓનું અરજદારે ઓનલાઈન ફોર્મ ભરતી વખતે
ફરજીયાત પાલન કરવાનું રહે શે. આમાંથી કોઈપણ લાયકાત/શરતો
પૂર્ણ ના થવાથી અરજદારની ઉમેદવારી રદ થવાને પાત્ર ગણાશે

Fair translation of said Clause 17 and relevant
note at the end of the instructions read as
under:

"(17) In cases where the marksheet reflects grades/scores,
it shall be mandatory to upload either: (a) the calculation
of marks derived from the grade/score as issued by the
University/College, or (b) a certificate/marksheet issued by
the University/College wherein such calculation of marks
has already been carried out."

……..The above instructions must be strictly adhered to by
the applicant while submitting the online form. Any failure
to comply with these clarifications or conditions shall result
in the cancellation of the applicant’s candidature.”

8.3 It is evident from a perusal of the said
advertisement/instruction that it was incumbent upon the
petitioner to upload the certificate showing her marks in the M.A.
examination along with her application, which was indisputably
not uploaded with the application. In such event, as per the
advertisement, the candidature of the petitioner liable to be
rejected by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the application
and the documents were required to be submitted online by
uploading them through the portal.

8.4 In the midst of the arguments, Mr. Rami, learned AGP has
provided the relevant pages of the website wherein all the
instructions and guidance were provided. It can be seen from it
that before submitting the application, a window for a "draft

Page 11 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

application" was provided to the applicant to check any error; at
that stage, an option was provided to edit the details. Once the
applicant clicked the button for "confirmation and submission," no
changes could have been made thereafter.

8.5 Thus, as per the instructions provided in the advertisement
as well as after going through the portal guidelines referred to by
Mr. Rami, learned AGP, it is evident that once the petitioner
submitted the application on 05.08.2020, thereafter she could not
have uploaded the requisite certificate. Accordingly, her
candidature was correctly rejected.

9. The emphasis of Mr. Pujara, learned advocate for the
petitioner, that a meritorious candidate should not be deprived of
public employment due to a technicality, such argument cannot be
appreciated by this Court, in view of the clear instructions provided
in the advertisement. It is a well-settled position of law that once
an applicant does not adhere to the instructions provided in the
advertisement, this Court cannot direct the respondent to accept
such certificates later in point of time, merely because the
petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.6.

10. The decisions pressed into service by the learned AGP and
the private respondents would clearly counter the arguments
canvassed by Mr. Pujara.

11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the pertinent
observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent decision
in the case of Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. (supra), wherein it

Page 12 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

observed thus:-

“28. Before parting, we would like to observe that in matters
of public recruitment, where large number of candidates
participate, application forms are submitted online along
with the scanned eligibility documents, certificates, etc. Such
applications are processed through computer applications/
software and therefore, any error in the application is
bound to result in rejection of the candidature.
Challenge to such a rejection must not ordinarily be
entertained as it could stall expeditious completion
of the recruitment process thereby frustrating
thousands and lacs of aspirants.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12. So far as decisions cited by Mr. Pujara, to buttress his
arguments, are concerned, none of the decisions would help the
case of the petitioner.

12.1 In the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the facts are
not so similar as of the present case. In the case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court, it appears that the learned Single Judge of Delhi High
Court followed its earlier decision in the case of Pushpa Vs.
Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC Online Del 281, whereby it
has directed the State authority to consider the caste certificate of
the petitioner concerned, which was not submitted with the
application. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court appears to
have set aside the said direction and the petitioner concerned
approached the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it had approved the
view of learned Single Judge. On minute examination of the facts
of that case, it is evident that facts of that case and the case relied

Page 13 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

upon by the learned Single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra)
arising out of the same advertisement, which would show that OBC
certificate, which was not submitted along with application, could
have been submitted before the provisional selection list published
by the authority, which is not the case on hand.

12.1.1 It is not laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that even if
there is delay in submission of any mandated document which
necessarily to be submitted along with application, the same can be
submitted later in time.

12.2 To better appreciate, I would like to refer few passages of
decision of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), which read as
under:-

“4. The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival
legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in
brief hereunder :- The respondent-Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “the DSSSB”) invited
applications for selection to the post of Staff Nurse in the
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
by way of publishing an Advertisement No. 09/2007 in the
Newspaper. The last date of submission of the
application form in the advertisement for the said post
was 21.01.2008. The appellant submitted his application form
before the due date and was subsequently issued the admit card
to appear in the examination. Having appeared in the
examination, he was shortlisted for selection. However, his name
did not appear in the final list of selected candidates. On
enquiry, he was informed by the concerned official that
he was not selected to the post for the reason that he
had failed to submit the OBC certificate issued by the
appropriate authority along with application form
before the last date of submission of application form.

Page 14 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

6.The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition
vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2010, placing
reliance on the judgment in the case of Pushpa (supra),
wherein the controversy centred around the same
advertisement/Notification issued by the same
respondent. The learned single Judge observed that the only
ground for declining the applications filed by the appellants was
that the O.B.C. certificates had been issued and submitted after
the cut off date and therefore they were not eligible for
appointment to the post. The learned single Judge further held
that the respondent did not cite any other authority to
distinguish the decision in Pushpa’s case (supra) from the facts of
the present case. Consequently, the learned single Judge
disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondent to
reconsider the application of the appellant and the other
aggrieved candidates against the O.B.C. category within a
period of one month.

14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not
considering the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra).
In that case, the learned single Judge of the High Court
had rightly held that the petitioners therein were
entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the
provisional selection list was published to claim the
benefit of the reservation of O.B.C. category. The learned
single judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a
pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of
reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in
view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India reported in 1992
Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385
as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University & Ors. reported
in (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713.
The learned single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra) also
considered another judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of
Tej Pal Singh V. Govt (Nct of Delhi, 1999 SCC Online Del 1092 :
ILR (2000) 1 Del 298, wherein the Delhi High Court had already
taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who
belonged to the S.C. and S.T. categories could not be rejected

Page 15 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate.

18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in the case
of Pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid
down by this Court, which have been referred to supra . The
Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the
judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, without
noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the
Constitution Benches of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney
and Valsamma Paul (supra) wherein this Court after
interpretation of Articles 14,15,16 and 39A of the Directive
Principles of State Policy held that the object of providing
reservation to the SC/ST and educationally and socially
backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public
employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are
unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general
category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and
deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of
reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well
as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State
Policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all
sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in
reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single
Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is
not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has
failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this
Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma
Paul (supra). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set
aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated
24.11.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No.
382 of 2009 is hereby restored.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12.3 Thus, it can be seen that the issue before the Hon’ble Apex
Court, though incidentally related to non-submission of document

Page 16 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

along with application form by the petitioner concerned but fact
remains that such certificate could have been submitted before the
date of publication of provisional select-list and in that peculiar
facts and circumstances and emphasizing that object of reservation
in the public employment cannot be frustrated on erroneous
ground by the authority, then following binding decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of
India, 1992 supp (3) SCC 217 and other such decisions, has set
aside the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court.

13. Furthermore, in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma
(supra), the facts are converse to the case on hand, inasmuch as,
the applicants concerned who had not cleared B.E. (Civil)
examination at the time of submitting their application, but prior
to the date of interview, they were allowed to sit for the interview
and having found meritorious, got selected as Junior Engineer by
the concerned State authority. Considering Rule 37 of the Public
Service Commission Business Rules and applying such Rule to the
facts of that case, in peculiar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble
Apex Court did not disturb the appointment of such applicants
who possess the requisite qualification subsequent to the filing of
the application. It has been held that by their selection on the basis
of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get
best talents available. It was considered to be in the best public
interest as the interview was made as broad based as was possible
on the basis of qualification.

14. So far as case on hand is concerned, it completely stands on a

Page 17 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

different footing, inasmuch as indisputably, it is a case of selection
of Aanganwadi worker without holding any interview. This Court
cannot be oblivious of the fact that the post for which the petitioner
applied, i.e., Aanganwadi workers, who are working to look after
minor children coming in the Aaganwadi. As per the
advertisement, the applicant possessing a 12th Std. qualification can
apply for the post of Aaganwadi worker. Merely because the
petitioner possesses a higher qualification like M.A., B.Ed, it
cannot be said that by "compromising merit," the appointment was
given to respondent No.6.

15. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to rely upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar
& Ors. v. Madhu Kant Ranjan & Anr. reported in (2021) 17
SCC 141, wherein it has been clearly laid down that the applicant
has to comply with all conditions/eligibility criteria as per the
advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein. It is
further held that only those documents, which are required to be
submitted as per advertisement, have to be considered and any
document which is presented after the cut-off date, the same
cannot be considered by the authority. The relevant observations of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision read as under:-

“10. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that in the
earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Judge
specifically observed [Madhu Kant Ranjan v. State of Bihar,
2009 SCC OnLine Pat 1684] that there is no pleading in the
writ petition that the petitioner had annexed his NCC ‘B’
certificate along with the original application. Once, it is
found that Respondent 1 — original writ petitioner did not

Page 18 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate along with the
original application which was the requirement as per the
advertisement and the cut-off date as per the advertisement
was 22-2-2004 and he produced the same after the physical
test on 15-1-2007, the appointing authority rightly held that
he shall not be entitled to additional five marks of NCC ‘B’
certificate. Though in the select list dated 8-9-2007, he was
awarded 17 marks, which included five additional marks of
NCC ‘B’ certificate, the appointing authority disagreed with
the same on the ground that as photocopy of the NCC ‘B’
certificate was not produced along with his application form,
which was the requirement as per the advertisement, he
shall not be entitled to five additional marks of NCC ‘B’
certificate. Therefore, when a decision was taken on the
representation made by Respondent 1 — original writ
petitioner which was pursuant to the earlier order [Madhu
Kant Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2009 SCC OnLine Pat 1684]
passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being
CWJC No. 5431 of 2008, the authority rightly refused to
allot/award five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.

11. As per the settled proposition of law, 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
along with the application form, which are required
to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be
considered. Therefore, when Respondent 1 — original writ
petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’
certificate along with 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. In these circumstances, the Division
Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants
to appoint Respondent 1 — original writ petitioner on the
post of Constable considering the select list dated 8-9-2007

Page 19 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

and allotting five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.”

(Emphasis supplied)

16. Likewise, the similar view is also expressed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of H.L.Kaveri & Ors. (supra), which
reads thus:-

“14. It remains undisputed as recorded by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of
the original records of which reference has been made that
the first respondent had not enclosed her experience
certificate along with the application and her
statement on oath was found to be factually
incorrect and the rejection of her application was
indeed in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11-
2013 for which the Corporation was not required to
assign any reasons which although was disclosed
before the Court and noticed by the learned Single
Judge in its judgment.

15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error
being committed by the Corporation in its decision-
making process while rejecting the application of
the first respondent for non-fulfilment of the
necessary experience certificate which was to be
enclosed along with the application as required in
terms of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013.”

(Emphasis supplied)

17. Thus, in view of the above, it is now well-settled that
whenever any mandatory instructions are not followed / adhered
to by the applicant as provided in the advertisement, such
application cannot be entertained. Nowadays, as all recruitment
processes are conducted by the respondent – State and its

Page 20 of 21
C/SCA/12879/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

instrumentalities via online portals; therefore, the applicant is
required to carefully fill up the form and upload the requisite
documents to a portal. In this digital era, the applicant must take
due care before submitting the application with the requisite
documents, failing which, the applicant cannot later be allowed to
cry foul.

18. In light of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that
since the petitioner did not upload the requisite certificate showing
her marks obtained in the M.A. examination at the time of
submitting her application, which was sine qua non, as per the
advertisement, her candidature requires to be rejected and same is
correctly rejected by the respondent. Therefore, I do not find any
merit in the arguments of Mr. Pujara, learned advocate for the
petitioner.

CONCLUSION:-

19. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons and conclusion, the
present petition deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby
dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: LALJI DESAI(HC01558), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/05/2026 15:12:06

Page 21 of 21