A residence certificate must establish the prescribed three-year residency period to support selection.

Respondent No. 4 invited applications for an Anganwadi Worker post at Muchlamba Village. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 applied, and respondent No. 5 was selected.

The petitioner objected that respondent No. 5 was not a resident of Muchlamba and relied on documents suggesting residence elsewhere. The authorities produced records, including respondent No. 5’s residence certificate dated 4 October 2021, and an enquiry report stating that she was a resident of Muchlamba.

The petitioner challenged the final selection list dated 1 March 2025 insofar as it selected respondent No. 5.

The Government Order dated 3 December 2022 and notification dated 5 January 2024 required applicants to produce a residence certificate evidencing residence for three years before the notification was issued.

The Court held that applicants must produce the requisite certificate in accordance with the applicable guidelines and Government Orders; the authorities could not cure the deficiency through a subsequent enquiry following a complaint.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited.

The Court found that respondent No. 5 relied on a residence certificate issued on 4 October 2021, which did not meet the requirement of evidencing residence for the three years preceding the notification of 5 January 2024.

Although an enquiry report stated that respondent No. 5 was a resident of Muchlamba, the Court held that such an enquiry could not substitute for the certificate required under the applicable rules.

The selection was therefore unsustainable, while the petitioner’s candidature remained subject to the prescribed eligibility requirements.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the post within three months of receiving the order, subject to the prevailing guidelines and Government Orders. No order was made as to costs.