An existing eligibility document’s upload omission is curable if remedied before final selection.

The authorities invited applications for an Anganwadi Assistant post at Yalavatti village. Basavva applied online and entered her SSLC particulars, but her candidature was rejected from the provisional list on the ground that she had not uploaded her SSLC certificate and proof of date of birth.

She objected and furnished the certificate before publication of the final selection list, but the authorities selected the other candidate without considering her objection.

The Single Judge quashed the final list insofar as it concerned the post, and directed the authorities to verify the certificate and reconsider Basavva’s candidature.

The authorities appealed, contending that the application requirements had to be met within the prescribed timeline and that accepting documents later would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether an eligible candidate may be disqualified solely for failing to upload an educational document with an online application where the document existed at the time of application and was furnished before the final selection list was issued

Whether the Single Judge’s direction to consider and verify the subsequently furnished SSLC certificate warranted appellate interference

Relying on Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754, which considered Pushpa v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281, and Tej Pal Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092, the Court applied the principle that a document evidencing a status or fact already in existence may be treated as confirmation of that pre-existing fact.

In the circumstances of this case, failure to upload a document was a curable defect and, by itself, did not justify disqualification where the relevant particulars had been entered in the application and the document was furnished before finalisation of selection.

Articles 14 and 16 were raised by the appellants in support of their challenge to late submission.

The Court found that Basavva had entered her SSLC particulars in the online application and had furnished the certificate to the authorities before publication of the final selection list.

Applying the cited principle concerning documents that confirm pre-existing facts, it held that the omission to upload the certificate was curable and that the authorities should have considered her representation before finalising the selection.

The Court also noted that Basavva had obtained 68.96% in SSLC, compared with 68.48% for the selected candidate, and concluded that the omission did not justify excluding her from consideration.

It dismissed the writ appeal, leaving in place the direction to reconsider her candidature after verifying the SSLC certificate and to issue a fresh final selection list for Anganwadi Centre No. 223, Yalavatti.