Case: THE KARNATAKA STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. H. L. KAVERI &amp; ORS.

experience certificate of 3 years even on the date when the advertisement came to be published dated 11 th November, 2013, she at least should not be deprived from fair consideration for such technical reasons against a woman who is member of Scheduled Caste category and for whom the post was reserved, in the given circumstances, denial from consideration for appointment after her suitability being adjudged has certainly caused a great prejudice to her and this what the Division Bench has observed and that needs no interference by this Court. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their assistance. 10. The appellant-Corporation notified the backlog vacancies in a daily newspaper vide its advertisement dated 11 th November, 2013 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the vacancies of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant including other posts. The academic qualification and work experience which was required for the purpose of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant is indicated hereunder: - Senior Assistant : Qualification: 1) Degree of recognized University 2) Preference to B. Com graduate with Accountancy as a subject. 3) Computer knowledge with MS Office and Tally or any other accounting package. Experience : Must have worked in a similar capacity for three years in a reputed company. Junior Assistant : Qualification : 1) Degree of recognized University. 2) Preference to B. Com graduate with Accountancy as a subject. 3) Computer knowledge with MS Office and Tally or any other accounting package. Experience : Must have worked in a similar capacity for TWO years in a reputed Company. 11. Under its advertisement dated 11 th November 2013, it was specifically indicated that separate application should be submitted for each post accompanied with various requirements including qualification, experience, etc. and incomplete application, if any, is liable for rejection without assigning any reason. The 1 st respondent applied for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant vide application dated 29 th November, 2013. After scrutiny of the applications, the select list of backlog vacancies was published on 16 th January, 2015 and it reveals from the record that impleaded 3 rd respondent in the writ petition (Smt. Priyanka A. Chanchalkar) was provisionally selected as Senior Assistant securing 64.65% marks. At the same time, the 1 st respondent secured 65.43% marks but since the 1 st respondent failed to submit experience certificate along with the application form, her application at the stage of scrutiny itself was rejected. 12. The Corporation in IA No. 3457 of 2020 has indicated that total 31 applications for the post of Senior Assistant were rejected in view of not enclosing of self-attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicant for Senior Assistant against the single post of female (Scheduled Caste) which remain unfilled because of the orders of the Court. At the same time, the Corporation rejected 106 number of applications for the post of Junior Assistant for not enclosing the documents required including self-attested copies of experience certificate/caste certificate/computer tally-certificate/graduation certififcate/birth certificate, etc. 13. It remains indisputed 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 1 st 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 th November, 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. 14. 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 1 st 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 th November, 2013. 15. That apart, the post of Senior Assistant which remained vacant, as informed to this Court, even if it is considered that there is a reasonable justification for which the certificate could not have been enclosed by the 1 st respondent along with the application, there are several other candidates who have obtained higher percentage in qualifying examination compared to the 1 st respondent whose applications have been rejected in view of not enclosing of self-attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicants for the post of Senior Assistant against the single post of women(SC) category, at least no indefensible right in the present circumstances, could have been claimed by the 1 st respondent for her inclusion in the select list for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant. At the same time, for the post of Junior Assistant, 106 applications of the applicants were rejected by the Corporation for non-enclosing self-attested copies including that of the experience certificate and this fact has come on record that out of 10 vacancies advertised, only one post for physically handicapped remain vacant as the suitable candidate was not available, which indeed could not be converted to open/other reserved categories. 16. The Division Bench of the High Court has relied upon the judgment in Seema Kumar Sharma case(supra) in extending relief to the 1 st respondent which, in our view, is of no assistance and, in our view, 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 dated 11 th November, 2013. 17. We would further like to observe that merely because the 1 st 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 over-reaching the rights of the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. Under its advertisement dated 11 th November 2013, it was specifically indicated that separate application should be submitted for each post accompanied with various requirements including qualification, experience, etc. and incomplete application, if any, is liable for rejection without assigning any reason. The 1 st respondent applied for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant vide application dated 29 th November, 2013. After scrutiny of the applications, the select list of backlog vacancies was published on 16 th January, 2015 and it reveals from the record that impleaded 3 rd respondent in the writ petition (Smt. Priyanka A. Chanchalkar) was provisionally selected as Senior Assistant securing 64.65% marks. At the same time, the 1 st respondent secured 65.43% marks but since the 1 st respondent failed to submit experience certificate along with the application form, her application at the stage of scrutiny itself was rejected12. The Corporation in IA No. 3457 of 2020 has indicated that total 31 applications for the post of Senior Assistant were rejected in view of not enclosing of self-attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicant for Senior Assistant against the single post of female (Scheduled Caste) which remain unfilled because of the orders of the Court. At the same time, the Corporation rejected 106 number of applications for the post of Junior Assistant for not enclosing the documents required including self-attested copies of experience certificate/caste certificate/computer tally-certificate/graduation certififcate/birth certificate, etc13. It remains indisputed 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 1 st 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 th November, 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 judgment14. 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 1 st 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 th November, 201315. That apart, the post of Senior Assistant which remained vacant, as informed to this Court, even if it is considered that there is a reasonable justification for which the certificate could not have been enclosed by the 1 st respondent along with the application, there are several other candidates who have obtained higher percentage in qualifying examination compared to the 1 st respondent whose applications have been rejected in view of not enclosing of self-attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicants for the post of Senior Assistant against the single post of women(SC) category, at least no indefensible right in the present circumstances, could have been claimed by the 1 st respondent for her inclusion in the select list for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant. At the same time, for the post of Junior Assistant, 106 applications of the applicants were rejected by the Corporation for non-enclosing self-attested copies including that of the experience certificate and this fact has come on record that out of 10 vacancies advertised, only one post for physically handicapped remain vacant as the suitable candidate was not available, which indeed could not be converted to open/other reserved categories16. The Division Bench of the High Court has relied upon the judgment in Seema Kumar Sharma case(supra) in extending relief to the 1 st respondent which, in our view, is of no assistance and, in our view, 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 dated 11 th November, 201317. We would further like to observe that merely because the 1 st 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 over-reaching the rights of the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment.