A caste certificate obtained after the application deadline cannot cure a deficiency in the application.

Respondents 4 and 5 invited applications for an Anganwadi Worker post, with applications to be filed between 10 October and 9 November 2024. The notification required applicants to upload all documents online and stated that documents uploaded later would not be verified or considered.

The petitioner and respondent No. 6 applied. Although the petitioner appeared in the provisional selection list, respondent No. 6 objected. The committee found that respondent No. 6 had uploaded an incorrect caste certificate and that the certificate she later produced was dated 11 November 2024—after the application deadline.

Following a direction in respondent No. 6’s earlier writ petition to consider her objections, the authority relied on a Division Bench decision and appointed her. The petitioner challenged that appointment.

The notification dated 9 October 2024 required applicants to upload all documents online by the stated deadline and provided that documents uploaded later would not be considered.

The Court applied the Division Bench decision in Smt. Ambuja v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.A. No. 200257 of 2024, dated 21 March 2025. That decision treated a failure to upload a document as a curable defect where the applicant already possessed the document before the deadline but could not upload it because of a technical snag.

It did not extend that principle to a document obtained only after the deadline.

The Court distinguished Ambuja because respondent No. 6’s caste certificate was not merely omitted from the online application: it had been obtained after the application deadline. The certificate therefore could not be treated as a curable upload defect under the Division Bench’s reasoning.

Accepting it was also inconsistent with the notification’s express requirement that documents be uploaded by the deadline.

Respondent No. 6’s greater academic merit and concern that she might be age-barred from applying again did not alter that conclusion.

It directed respondent No. 5 to appoint the petitioner to the post forthwith by issuing an appointment order. No order as to costs was made.