Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) against a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court that directed FCI to appoint the respondent, Rimjhim, to the post of Assistant Grade-II (Hindi). The respondent had applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.02.2015, which required one year's experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice versa. She was shortlisted and ranked sixth in the merit list, but was not issued a final appointment letter. FCI rejected her candidature on the ground that she did not produce the requisite experience certificate at the time of application or during document verification. The respondent had initially submitted a relieving-cum-experience letter dated 27.08.2014, which FCI considered insufficient. Later, she produced certificates dated 14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016 before the Single Judge, but the Single Judge dismissed her writ petition. The Division Bench allowed her appeal, holding that the certificates showed she had the requisite experience and that non-production was a mere irregularity. The Supreme Court allowed FCI's appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's order. The Court held that the essential eligibility criteria must be strictly complied with, and the experience certificate should have been produced at the time of application or at least during document verification. The certificates produced subsequently could not be considered to cure the initial deficiency. The Court emphasized that relaxing the requirement would undermine the sanctity of the selection process. The appeal was allowed, and the Division Bench's judgment was quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Essential Eligibility Criteria - Strict Compliance - The essential eligibility criteria, including production of experience certificate, must be strictly complied with at the time of application or at least at the time of document verification. Subsequent production of certificates cannot cure the initial deficiency. (Paras 7.1-7.3) B) Service Law - Advertisement - Clauses 28, 32, 33, 35, 37 - Sanctity of Selection Process - The clauses of the advertisement require that candidates produce relevant certificates at the time of application or verification. Permitting subsequent production would undermine the sanctity of the selection process. (Paras 5.4-5.6) C) Service Law - High Court's Power - Judicial Review - The High Court erred in considering certificates dated 14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016 which were not produced at the time of application or verification. The court cannot relax essential eligibility criteria. (Paras 5.5, 7.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the FCI's rejection of the respondent's candidature for the post of Assistant Grade-II (Hindi) on the ground that she did not produce the requisite experience certificate at the time of application or document verification, and whether the High Court could consider certificates produced subsequently.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment, and restored the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition. The Court held that the respondent did not fulfill the essential eligibility criteria as she failed to produce the experience certificate at the time of application or document verification, and subsequent certificates cannot cure the deficiency.
Law Points
- Essential eligibility criteria must be strictly complied with
- Experience certificate must be produced at the time of application or document verification
- Subsequent production of certificates cannot cure initial deficiency
