An unchallenged residence certificate prevails over contrary residence records in a selection challenge.

The petitioner and respondent No. 5 applied for an Anganwadi Worker post at Humnabad following a notification dated 19 January 2024.

Both submitted residence certificates, and respondent No. 5 was selected on comparative merit.

The petitioner objected, alleging that respondent No. 5 was permanently resident in Byalahalli, Bhalki Taluk, and had obtained a Humnabad residence certificate despite residing there only temporarily.

An inquiry found that respondent No. 5 had lived in Byalahalli around seven years earlier and was then residing in Humnabad.

The petitioner sought to quash the final selection list dated 29 May 2026 and obtain appointment in respondent No. 5’s place.

1. Whether respondent No. 5’s selection was liable to be set aside on the ground that she was not a resident of Humnabad and had produced an incorrect residence certificate.

2. Whether respondent No. 5’s failure to disclose her marital status and continued use of her father’s name in her records undermined her eligibility or selection.

The Court considered Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which the petitioner sought judicial review.

It applied the requirement in the notification dated 19 January 2024 that an applicant produce a residence certificate for the place where the Anganwadi post is being filled.

The Court’s reasoning was that a residence certificate issued by the competent Tahsildar and not challenged or cancelled remained operative for the selection; no precedent or additional statutory provision was cited.

Both candidates produced residence certificates issued by the competent authority, and respondent No. 5’s certificate had neither been challenged nor cancelled.

The Tahsildar’s inquiry indicated that respondent No. 5 had formerly lived in Byalahalli but was then residing in Humnabad.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s reliance on respondent No. 5’s voter records and election identity card did not displace the operative residence certificate.

The Court also rejected the marital-status argument because the notification did not require disclosure of that information.

Finding no basis to disturb the authorities’ assessment that respondent No. 5 was more meritorious, the Court declined to interfere with the selection.

The final selection of respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker at Humnabad was left undisturbed.