- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27613 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SUNITA L V D/O LAKKAPPA VALMIKI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS OCCU NIL R/AT OF IANAM AGRAHARA MUCHUDI SHIKARIPUR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577428. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH SHIVAMOGGA POST BOX NO.21 SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY ZILLA PANCHAYAT SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA POST BOX NO.21 SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 3. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYATH IANAM AGRAHARA MUCHUDI, SHIKARIPUR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201. 4. SMT SAVITA S C D/O RAJAPPA B F AGE MAJOR Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 R/OF IANAM AGRAHARA MUCHUDI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMGOGA DISTRICT – 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3: SRI BASAVARAJ PATEL G K, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL SELECTION LIST DATED: 21.08.2024 IN NO.GRA.PAM.A GRA ME.NE/2024 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the appointment order issued by the third respondent, appointing the fourth respondent as Library Supervisor in the third respondent – Gram Panchayath. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent issued notification dated 01.02.2024 vide Annexure-A calling applications for filling up the posts of Library Supervisors to different Gram Panchayats, including the third respondent – Gram Panchayat. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner submitted an application vide Annexure-B. Even though the petitioner has secured higher marks, the fourth respondent was selected by the Committee and appointment order has been issued in favour of the fourth respondent vide Annexure-H dated 21.08.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in column No.9 of the application provided by the third respondent – Gram Panchayat, it is mentioned regarding the domicile of the candidate, but it is not mentioned that they have to enclose the domicile certificate along with the application. Therefore, the petitioner has not enclosed the domicile certificate along with the application. But, before the Committee has taken a decision, she submitted the domicile certificate. On that basis the petitioner’s name has been placed in the provisional select list, but the final select list was issued selecting the fourth respondent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 4. He further submits that non-submission of the domicile certificate is a curable defect, the petitioner has submitted the certificate before the Selection Committee takes a decision. In support of his contention, he relied on paragraph 4 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAM KUMAR GIJROYA V. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2016 SC 1098. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has contended that as per the notification dated 01.02.2024 vide Annexure-A, it is very clear that along with the application, Domicile Certificate has to be enclosed. The petitioner has produced the Domicile Certificate dated 23.05.2024 vide Annexure-D, after the last date of the application. Therefore, the same has not been considered. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SOUMEN PAUL AND OTHERS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 VS. SHRABANI NAYEK AND OTHERS reported AIR 2025 SC 2243. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has contended that the petitioner has obtained Domicile Certificate after the last date of the application. As per the notification, the petitioner has to enclose the Domicile Certificate along with the application. Since the Committee has not considered this aspect of the matter and provisional list has been issued, respondent No.4 as well as the villagers have filed objections to the provisional list. The Committee, after considering the same, selected respondent No.4 in the final selection list. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.4864/2022 dated 16.01.2025, wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court has dismissed the petition. Hence, he sought for dismissal of writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the petition papers. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 8. The second respondent has issued the notification dated 01.02.2024 vide Annexure-A inviting applications to the post of Library Supervisors in Gram Panchayath. In the notification, in respect of Domicile Certificate is concerned, it is mentioned that the candidate has to furnish the Domicile Certificate issued by the competent authority and enclose the same along with the application. The relevant condition is extracted below: 2) ಾಸಸಳ : ಾಮ ಪಂಾಯ ಗಂಾಲಯ ಮತು ಾ ೇಂದಗಳ ೕಾರಕರ ಹು ೆ!ೆ ಅfð ಸ#ಸುವ ಅಭ&yðಗಳ' ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ+ ಾಮ ಪಂಾಯ ಾ&,ಯ -ಾ./ಾ0ರತಕ1ದು!. ಪರಂತು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ+ ಾಮ ಪಂಾಯ ಾ&,ಯ -ಾ. ಲಭ&2ೆ ಇಲ# ೆ ಇದ!# ಆ/ಾ 2ಾಲೂಕು ಾ&,ಯ#ನ ಹ ರದ ಾಮ ಪಂಾಯ ಯ ಅಭ&yðಗಳನು7 ಆ81ೆ ಪ9ಗ:ಸ;ಾಗುವ<ದು. ಸಂಬಂ=.ದಂ2ೆ ಸ>ಮ ?ಾ=ಾರಾದ ತಹ@ೕ;ಾ!ರ9ಂದ ಾಸಸಳ ಪಾಣ ಪತವನು7 ಪBೆದು ಸ#ಸತಕ1ದು!”. 9. In the application, column-9 is mentioned as follows: “ĆỳłќјгĉỳўΎĢỳŁΓķўΡńĢỳΧџ—ẀњĆ’ĪѓẄΥ†ĠỳĹџџẀΠгѕ јĐ’ѕĢỳẃẃĸಳјłĜỳђјѓł(жĖỳφPÁqïð/ ªÉÇÃlgï Lr)” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 10. From the above, it is very clear that the candidate, who has applied for the post of Library Supervisor has to enclose the Domicile Certificate along with the application. The last date to submit the application was 23.02.2024. The petitioner has not enclosed the Domicile Certificate along with the application. The said certificate has been obtained by the petitioner on 23.05.2024 vide Annexure-D i.e., after the last date for filing the application. Even though the petitioner has produced the Domicile Certificate before the provisional selection list was issued, the certificate which he has produced has been obtained after the last date of filing the application. In the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of RAM KUMAR GIJROYA (supra), the Apex Court has held that the OBC certificate has been obtained before the last date of application, but it was not enclosed along with the application and it was produced before issuing the provisional list. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 11. In the case on hand, the Domicile Certificate has been obtained after the cut-off date of filing the application. The Apex Court in the case of SOUMEN PAUL (supra), in paragraph 23 held as follows” “23. The issue regarding the date by which candidates for selection must possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment is no more res-integra. Apart from the decision of this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) referred to by Mr. Sanyal, there are many other precedents, which were referred to and considered in a later decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi). The relevant portion of the order is as follows; "11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification. 12. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana", this Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. This Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of sub-mission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible. 13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in M. V. Nair v. Union of India" held as under: "9.... It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date." 14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, this Court held: "2.... It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the rules." 15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan held: "10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz, even those candidates who do not have the qualifications - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications.... Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra" and Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi." 16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher", the majority view was as under: "15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis of their - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, not-withstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect...." However, the opinion of R.M. Sahai, J. had been that these 33 persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last date of submission of applications. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar reconsidered and explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) observing: "6. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment." The Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 18: (AIR Online 1997 SC 700) further explained that the majority view in Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) was not correct, rather the dissenting view by R.M. Sahai, J. was correct as the Court held as under. "6.... The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview." 12. The judgment referred by the petitioner in RAM KUMAR GIJROYA (supra) can be distinguished from the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 facts of the present case in as much as, in the said case, the Apex Court, relying upon the earlier judgment rendered in the cases of INDRA SAHNEY vs. UNION OF INDIA and VALSAMMA PAUL vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY, wherein, Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A were interfered and it was held that the object of providing reservation to SC/ST and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belong 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. on such ground, the OBC certificate submitted after the cut-off date were accepted on facts, the ratio decided obviously has no application as the lis involved here is entirely different. 13. In view of the above, it is very clear that the certificate has to be submitted before the last date of the application. Since the petitioner has obtained the Domicile - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24524 WP No. 27613 of 2024 Certificate after the last date of filing the application, the Selection Committee has rightly not considered the case of the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 59