A rejected applicant’s objection alone cannot justify re-notification displacing an eligible provisionally selected candidate.

The petitioner applied for the Anganwadi Worker post at Rendal Thot Kerur Centre-173 pursuant to a recruitment notification dated 15 April 2025.

Her name appeared in the provisional list, but the final list dated 13 March 2026 marked the post for re-notification without stating a reason.

The authorities later explained that re-notification followed an objection by another candidate whose application had been rejected as incomplete.

The petitioner challenged the re-notification and the subsequent invitation for applications.

The High Court stayed the later notification and sought an explanation from the State.

The petitioner later produced material showing that the objector had been appointed as an Anganwadi Assistant at another centre; the State did not dispute that appointment.

The Court exercised its judicial-review jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It applied the principle that public authorities may not act arbitrarily or illegally in administering a selection process; in particular, an objection by a person whose own application was rejected as incomplete did not, by itself, justify displacing a candidate whose eligibility and selection had been reflected in the provisional list.

The judgment cites no specific recruitment statute, rule, or precedent.

The Court found that the petitioner’s name had appeared in the provisional list and that the stated basis for re-notification was the objection of a candidate whose application had been rejected as incomplete.

That objection did not justify setting aside the petitioner’s candidature.

The Court further noted that the objector had been appointed as an Anganwadi Assistant at another centre and that no selection-related proceedings concerning the disputed centre had progressed while the interim stay was in force.

It therefore held the re-notification unjustified, arbitrary, and illegal.

The Court set aside Annexure-G dated 13 March 2026 insofar as it concerned the petitioner and Rendal Thot Kerur Centre-173.

It directed the respondents to process her candidature from the provisional-notification stage and issue an appointment order in accordance with law within four weeks, with compliance to be reported to the Registry.