Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AUG:1934-DB
534-26-WP.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.534 OF 2026
1. Rohit S/o. Digambar Kamble,
Age: 35 years, Occu.: Student,
R/o. At Post Yenegur, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Dharashiv.
2. Nayana Rajaram Patil,
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Student,
R/o.Flat No.C-205, Sun City,
Ambegaon, Pune, Dist. Pune. … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Education,
Pune, Central Building, Pune.
3. The Maharashtra State Council
of Examination, Pune. … Respondents
......
Mr. Kedar G. Anmole a/w Mr. Abhishek C. Deshpande, Advocates for
Petitioners
Ms. Neha B. Kamble, APP for Respondents No.1 and 2
Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No.3
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 14 JANUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing at the stage of admission.
534-26-WP.odt
{2}
2. The petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, in
substance, a direction to the respondents to permit
modification/updation of the online self-certification submitted on the
Pavitra Portal 2025 by uploading an earthquake certificate and a project
affected certificate of the petitioners, respectively, in the horizontal
reservation category and to further permit the petitioners to continue in
the ongoing selection process for Shikshan Sevak/Teachers-2025. The
petitioners also seek exemption from clause 9(b) of the recruitment
guidelines dated 15.12.2025, which, as pleaded, requires that
certificates relied upon in the self-certification must bear a date prior to
the cut-off date of 14.05.2025.
3. The petitioner states that they have passed the TAIT examination
2025 for recruitment of teachers. They applied to the recruitment
process by uploading an online self-certification on the Pavitra Portal
containing personal, reservation, academic and other particulars. It is
pleaded that candidates were required to submit the requisite
documents mentioned in the self-certification on or before 14.05.2025.
As per the guidelines dated 15.12.2025, the certificate of horizontal
reservation or any other certificate mentioned in the self-certification
was required to be dated on or before 14.05.2025. Petitioner No. 1
534-26-WP.odt
{3}
claims horizontal reservation on the basis of an earthquake certificate
dated 02.09.2025. Petitioner No. 1 pleads that she applied for such
certificate on 13.05.2025 and could not receive it prior to 14.05.2025
because of delay attributable to the concerned department. Petitioner
No. 2 claims horizontal reservation on the basis of a project affected
certificate dated 27.05.2025. She pleaded that she applied on
02.04.2025 but did not receive the certificate prior to 14.05.2025. The
petitioners contended that their receipts evidencing applications for
such certificates are prior to 14.05.2025 and ought to be treated as
sufficient compliance. They also plead that such certificates can be used
once in a lifetime and therefore strict insistence on the date clause
would operate harshly. They made representations on 17.12.2025 and
24.12.2025 requesting permission to continue in the selection process
by considering receipts prior to the cut-off date.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
did whatever lay within their control by applying for issuance of
certificates before the cut-off date, delay in issuance was attributable to
the authorities, and therefore, the petitioners ought not to be penalized
by exclusion from the process. The submission is that the relevant fact is
eligibility in substance and the date of issuance of a certificate should
not defeat such eligibility, particularly when the petitioners had applied
534-26-WP.odt
{4}
before the cut-off date. On this premise, a mandamus is sought to
permit uploading of the certificates and to exempt the petitioners from
the impugned clause.
5. Learned AGP for the State and learned advocate appearing for
respondent No.3 opposes the petition. Learned AGP submits that the
self-certification and the governing guidelines expressly stipulate that
the horizontal reservation certificate must be issued on or before
14.05.2025. The time for submission has long expired. The documents
relied upon by the petitioners are dated after the cut-off date, the online
system does not permit uploading at this stage and any judicial
direction to accept such documents would amount to rewriting the
terms of the recruitment. Prejudicing other candidates and undermining
certainty and equal opportunity in public employment.
6. We have considered the rival submissions. The controversy,
though presented as one of technicalities, in essence concerns judicial
interference with a stipulated eligibility/cut-off condition in a
time-bound public recruitment process and the permissibility of
directing relaxation after the last date, particularly where the
recruitment conditions are explicit.
534-26-WP.odt
{5}
7. The law on cut-off date and eligibility in public recruitment is
well settled. A candidate must satisfy the prescribed eligibility
conditions as on the cut-off date specified in the rules or in the
advertisement, and if no specific cut-off date then the last date for
receipt of applications is treated as the relevant date. The Hon’ble Apex
Court has reiterated the principle that eligibility conditions are
examined with reference to the last date for submission of applications
and relied upon a consistent line of authorities including the case of
Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 supp. (3) SCC 168
and Rakesh Kumar Sharma versus Government of NCT of Delhi, (2013)
11 SCC 58, emphasizing that absent a fixed date, uncertainty would
prevail and the recruitment could be manipulated, hence the only
certain date is the last date for making applications.
8. Equally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned against
relaxation of recruitment conditions after the schedule in the
advertisement and/or rules has commenced. Unless a specific power is
reserved and is exercised consistently with constitutional requirements
of equality and fairness. In the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah
Khan and others, (2011) 12 SCC 85, a case concerning submission of
disability-related documentation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, it must be
scrupulously maintained, there cannot be relaxation in the terms and
534-26-WP.odt
{6}
conditions of the advertisement unless such power is specifically
reserved and in absence of such power, Courts ought not to direct
acceptance of essential documents beyond the stipulated stage as doing
so would offend Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of
reservation claims, has reaffirmed the strict approach where the
governing framework mandates possession of the requisite certificate by
the closing date. In Divya v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 1 SCC
448 dealing with EWS certificates under the civil services examination
rules, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the crucial date for
submitting the certificate is the closing date for receipt of applications
unless fixed otherwise and that the candidate must be in possession of
the requisite certificate on or before the cut-off date prescribed by the
rule or notice. These decisions underscore the systemic necessity of
certainty, equal competition and non-arbitrariness in the recruitment
process.
10. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the relief sought cannot be
granted. The petitioners do not merely seek consideration of documents
at a later stage, but they seek a direction to reopen and alter the online
self-certification already submitted on the Pavitra Portal and more
fundamentally, to exempt them from the stipulated requirement that the
534-26-WP.odt
{7}
relevant horizontal reservation certificates must be dated on or before
14.05.2025. The recruitment guidelines as pleaded prescribe a clear cut-
off date. There are no pleadings challenging the fixation of 14.05.2025
as the cut-off date on the grounds of arbitrary, discriminatory, mollified
or contrary to any statutory rules. In the absence of such foundational
pleadings and proof, judicial review does not extend to re-fixing or
modifying cut-off dates as a matter of sympathy or individual hardship.
11. The petitioner seeks to overcome the cut-off date by relying on
receipts showing that applications for certificates were made prior to
14.05.2025. However, the condition pleaded before us is not that the
candidate must have applied for a certificate before the cut-off date, the
condition is that the certificate itself must be dated on or before the
cut-off date. Once the rules or the notice so provides, acceptance of a
latter issued certificate or a direction to treat receipts as equal would
amount to relaxation or rewriting of the eligibility conditions. In public
recruitment, such judicially crafted relaxation risks prejudice to other
candidates who may have refrained from applying or claiming a
category benefit because they did not possess the requisite certificate by
the cut-off date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently treated
this as a serious constitutional concern, rooted in equal opportunity. The
reasoning in Vedanga Talukdar (supra) squarely applies to the facts of
the present case where courts cannot direct relaxation of stipulated
534-26-WP.odt
{8}
documents/eligibility requirements in the absence of a reserved power
to relax and particularly not in a manner that disturbs a notified
schedule and selection conditions.
12. Even on the petitioner's own pleadings, the factual matrix does
not commend interference. Petitioner No. 1 applied for the earthquake
certificate on 13.05.2025, i.e. one day before the cut-off date. Petitioner
No. 2 applied on 02.04.2025. The incidents giving rise to the claimed
entitlement to horizontal reservation as the petition itself indicates
occurred years earlier. The petitioners being 35 and 40 years of age as
stated in the cause title, have not offered any satisfactory explanation as
to why the process for obtaining certificates based on events of long-
standing was initiated at the end of the cut-off date window. The
authorities before issuing such certificates are expected to verify old
records and genuineness, time taken for such verification cannot in
every case be branded as delay warranting judicial interference into the
recruitment norms.
13. The petitioners also submit that the certificates are once in a
lifetime and therefore non-consideration would be harsh. Hardship
however cannot be the measure to invalidate a cut-off date or to compel
relaxation in a selection governed by clear terms. Fixation of a cut-off
date is a policy or administrative decision, ordinarily immune from
534-26-WP.odt
{9}
interference unless it is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory or
violative of statutory provisions. The petition is conspicuously lacking in
any pleadings or material to demonstrate such infirmity.
14. Finally, the prayer to permit modification and/or updation on
the portal at this stage also cannot be granted as a matter of course.
Courts are slow to issue directions that require reopening digital
application modules or altering submissions after closure of the
application windows because such directions affect the integrity and
uniformity of the process and can generate cascading claims. This is
precisely why the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized scrupulous
adherence to the notified schedule and warned against post facto
relaxation absent a reserved power.
15. In view of the settled law and the facts pleaded, we are not
persuaded that the petitioners have made out any case for exercise of
writ jurisdiction to direct acceptance of certificates dated after the
cut-off or to exempt them from the governing clause.
16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No
orders as to cost.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane