Candidature may be cancelled when mandatory nursing registration is not produced during document verification.

The Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation issued Advertisement No. BMC/201819/7 for 43 posts of Female Health Workers, including six posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioner, claiming Scheduled Tribe status, applied and completed a General Nursing and Midwifery course from Karnataka. She appeared in the written examination and was included in the provisional merit list, standing fourth among Scheduled Tribe candidates.

At document verification on 20 February 2019, she produced only a receipt evidencing her application for registration with the Gujarat Nursing Council and not the registration certificate itself. The Selection Committee cancelled her candidature on 25 February 2019 for failure to produce the requisite registration certificate. The final select list was published the same day, and the selected Scheduled Tribe candidates joined service on 5/6 March 2019.

Although the Gujarat Nursing Council had issued a provisional registration certificate, the petitioner did not produce it before the Selection Committee during the selection process. She challenged her exclusion and sought appointment under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Corporation acted illegally or arbitrarily in cancelling the petitioner’s candidature for failure to produce a Gujarat Nursing Council registration certificate at the stage of document verification.

Whether the High Court, exercising judicial review under Article 226, could interfere with the Selection Committee’s decision and direct the petitioner’s appointment despite publication of the final merit list and joining of the selected candidates.

The Court applied the principle that judicial review under Article 226 is directed against the decision-making process, and not against the merits or correctness of the administrative decision itself.

Relying on State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (D) Lrs., AIR 2004 SC 627, the Court held that interference is permissible where there is a manifest error of law, disregard of vital evidence, misinterpretation of statutory provisions, or grave injustice, but the writ court cannot function as an appellate court or reappreciate evidence.

The Court also relied on Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 13 SCC 621, for the rule that judicial review ordinarily examines the administrative decision-making process rather than the decision itself.

The requirement that the candidate possess and produce the requisite Gujarat Nursing Council registration at document verification was treated as a valid selection requirement.

The Court found that, at the relevant stage of document verification, the petitioner had produced only proof of having applied for registration and had not placed the provisional registration certificate before the Selection Committee.

The certificate was issued or became available only after the selection process had concluded and the final select list had been published. Consequently, the Committee’s decision to cancel her candidature was based on the material available to it and did not disclose any procedural illegality, disregard of admissible evidence, or manifest error warranting judicial review.

The Court further noted that the selected candidates had already joined, the petitioner had not challenged the final merit list, the successful candidates had not been impleaded, and the merit list had a two-year life which had expired.

The petition seeking quashing of the final merit list and a direction for appointment was dismissed. Rule was discharged, and no appointment or other relief was granted to the petitioner.