NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).   344  OF 2020       (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 9394 of 2019)

THE KARNATAKA STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR            ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SMT. H.L. KAVERI & ORS.  ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment passed by

the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 1st

February, 2019 directing the appellant­Corporation to consider the

claim of 1st respondent taking note of the work experience certificate

1

for appointment in accordance with law with a caveat that the order

has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

and shall not be treated as a precedent.

2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell relevant for the purpose

are that the appellant­Corporation invited applications for various

posts against the backlog vacancies including two vacancies of

Senior Assistant and ten vacancies of Junior Assistant pursuant to

an advertisement dated 11th  November, 2013.   Apart from the

academic and professional qualifications, the applicant was

required  to  furnish a certificate  of  work experience  of  3  years/2

years in a reputed company for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior

Assistant.   It was further indicated in the advertisement that

separate application has to be furnished for each post and

incomplete application shall be rejected without assigning any

reasons.    The 1st respondent applied for both the posts, i.e. Senior

Assistant and Junior Assistant on a separate application, and

indeed was holding academic/professional qualification but it

reveals from the record that she had not enclosed the experience

2

certificate of  the requisite period along with the application  form

which was required at the time of submitting the application.  

3. The select list of the candidates was to be prepared in terms of

Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Civil Services(Unfilled Vacancies

reserved  for the  persons belonging  to the  Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001(hereinafter

being referred to  as “Rules”) based  on the  percentage of  marks

secured by the candidate  in the qualification examination taking

into consideration the reservation for women, ex­servicemen,

physically handicapped and project displaced persons in

accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)

Rules, 1977.

4. The  1st  Respondent is  a  women and  member  of  Scheduled

caste category and secured 65.43% of marks in the qualifying

examination and still when her name was not included in the select

list, made representation but when failed to get satisfactory

response, she approached the High Court by filing of a writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution.  In reply to the writ petition

filed by the Corporation, the specific case pleaded was that the 1st

3

respondent had applied for both the posts of Senior

Assistant/Junior Assistant, but she failed to enclose the experience

certificate  which  was the condition of eligibility in terms  of the

advertisement  and  at the stage  of scrutiny,  her  application  was

rejected without assigning any reason. For satisfaction of the Court,

the learned Single Judge of the High Court called for the original

records and recorded a finding in paragraph 7 of the judgment that

experience certificate was not enclosed by her with the application

form which is reproduced hereunder:­

 “On perused of the original records, it is clear that petitioner has not enclosed experience certificate while applying to the posts. This is evident from the application submitted, which contains other enclosures except the experience certificate. The scrutiny of application that has been made and maintained by respondent­Corporation reveals that several applications have been rejected noting the reasons  for  such rejection.  The reason  for  rejecting the application filed by petitioner is stated as  ‘non­ enclosure of experience certificate’. Incidentally, it has to be noticed that other candidates who had not enclosed the experience certificate also suffered similar consequences”.

5. The Single Judge of the High Court, taking note of the factual

statement, was not inclined to consider the claim of the 1st

respondent and accordingly dismissed the writ petition vide

4

judgment dated 11th July, 2016 that came to be challenged by the

1st respondent in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of

the High Court.  The Division Bench of the High Court took note of

the statement of facts recorded by the learned Single Judge, but

taking note of the fact that the 1st  respondent has secured higher

marks in the qualifying examination for the post of Senior/Junior

Assistant and mere non­enclosure of the experience certificate with

the application, should not deny her claim of fair consideration for

appointment and noticing the alleged peculiar facts allowed the LPA

with a direction to the appellant­Corporation to consider the claim

of the 1st  respondent taking note of  the experience certificate for

consideration and appointment with a caveat that the order passed

by the Division Bench would not be treated as a precedent which is

a subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.

6. Learned counsel for the  appellants  submits that  experience

certificate of a reputed Company of 3 years and 2 years for the post

of Senior Assistant and Junior Assistant is a condition of eligibility

under the terms of advertisement dated 11th November, 2013 and

this fact remain indisputed from the original records as perused by

5

the Single Judge of the High Court holding that the 1st respondent

has failed to enclose experience certificate of 3 years/2 years in a

reputed Company and 31 applications of women candidates for the

post of Senior Assistant and 106 applications for Junior Assistant

of such nature which were incomplete, were rejected by the

Corporation and seven women candidates listed as valid

applications for Senior Assistant against one women category

remain awaited and the 1st respondent would not be entitled for any

preference over the successful candidates who were considered

eligible and placed in the select list in the order of merit for

appointment to the  post of  Senior/Junior  Assistant  prepared in

terms of advertisement dated 11th November, 2013.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment on which

the Division Bench has placed reliance in the case of  Seema

Kumari Sharma  Vs.  State of  Himachal Pradesh and Others

1998(9) SCC 128 is of no assistance on the facts of the present case

and in the given circumstances, the Division Bench has committed

a manifest error in directing the Corporation to take on record the

6

experience certificate  of the  1st  respondent  and  consider  her for

appointment and that needs to be interfered by this Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st  respondent, while

supporting judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court,

further submits that the select list was to be prepared of the

candidates based on the percentage of marks secured in the

qualifying examination and there is no other

consideration/evaluation in the process of selection for

appointment to the post of Senior/Junior Assistant under the

advertisement dated 11th November, 2013 and further submits that

to the best of her knowledge, the 1st  respondent had enclosed her

experience certificate along with the application form, but even if

there was a deficiency in the application form filled by the 1st

respondent, it was at the best be construed to be a bonafide

mistake and as she was holding the experience certificate of 3 years

even on  the  date  when  the  advertisement  came  to  be  published

dated 11th  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

7

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 appellant­Corporation notified the backlog vacancies in a

daily newspaper vide its advertisement dated 11th 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.

8

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  11th  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 1st

respondent applied for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior

Assistant vide application dated 29th  November, 2013.   After

scrutiny of the applications, the select list of backlog vacancies was

published on 16th January, 2015 and it reveals from the record that

impleaded  3rd  respondent in the  writ petition (Smt.  Priyanka  A.

Chanchalkar) was provisionally selected as Senior Assistant

securing  64.65% marks.  At the same time, the  1st  respondent

9

secured 65.43% marks but since the 1st 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 self­attested 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 self­attested copies of experience certificate/caste

certificate/computer tally­certificate/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  1st  respondent  had not

enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and

her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect and the

10

rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the

advertisement dated 11th 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 1st  respondent for non­fulfilment of

the necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along

with the application as required in terms of the advertisement dated

11th 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  1st  respondent  along  with the  application,

there are several other candidates who have obtained higher

percentage in qualifying examination compared to the 1st

respondent whose applications have been rejected  in view of  not

enclosing of self­attested documents and there are 7 women

11

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 1st 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 non­enclosing self­attested 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 1st 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

12

could be considered in terms of the advertisement dated 11th

November, 2013.   

17. We would further like to observe that merely because the 1st

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 over­reaching the rights of the

candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment.

18. The appeal is according allowed and the judgment of the High

Court dated 1st February, 2019 is hereby set aside.  No costs.

19. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

…………….…………………………………….J. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD]  

…………….…………………………………….J. [AJAY RASTOGI]

New Delhi January 21, 2020

13

14