Conflicting eligibility records require fresh adjudication of selection disputes based on the original record.

An advertisement dated 22 October 2016 invited applications for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarta at New Anganwadi Centre, Matatola, District Chhindwara.

The petitioner was initially placed first in the tentative merit list, but the Committee awarded respondent No. 5 ten additional BPL marks and appointed her on 8 March 2019.

The Collector, Chhindwara, allowed the petitioner’s appeal on 30 September 2020, found that the prescribed procedure had not been properly followed, directed a fresh selection process, and ordered an inquiry into the irregularities.

The Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, reversed that decision on 3 February 2021 and upheld respondent No. 5’s appointment.

Whether the Additional Commissioner was justified in setting aside the Collector’s order directing reconsideration and fresh selection despite disputed records concerning respondent No. 5’s BPL status and the production of the BPL document after the application cut-off date?

Whether the rival claims regarding respondent No. 5’s BPL entitlement, the petitioner’s widow-category marks, and the resulting comparative merit could be conclusively determined without examining the original selection record and related official registers and documents?

Whether respondent No. 5’s subsequent production of the BPL card was merely evidentiary of a pre-existing BPL status or amounted to reliance on a qualification/document arising after the cut-off date?

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, focusing on whether the administrative authorities had properly considered the relevant selection record, followed the applicable rules and circulars, and reached a legally sustainable decision.

The governing principle was that eligibility, entitlement to preferential or additional marks, and comparative merit must be determined in accordance with the applicable recruitment instructions and the prescribed cut-off requirements, while disputed factual issues must be assessed on the basis of the original official record and after affording affected candidates a fair hearing.

The petitioner relied on Renu Vishwakarma v. Tulsi Vishwakarma, W.A. No. 1158 of 2018, Dr. M.V. Nayar v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429, and Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58, concerning cut-off dates and subsequent production of eligibility documents.

The respondents relied on the principle that a subsequently produced document may be evidentiary if the underlying status already existed before the cut-off date, and referred to the circular dated 15 May 2017 and the BPL list for 2002–03.

The Court found that the dispute could not be resolved merely by accepting either the petitioner’s allegation that respondent No. 5 produced the BPL document after the cut-off date or the respondents’ assertion that the BPL status pre-existed the advertisement.

The record contained competing official materials concerning the BPL list, the later entry dated 23 November 2016, the documents submitted during selection, and the petitioner’s entitlement to widow-category marks.

These matters directly affected the candidates’ eligibility, allocation of additional marks, comparative merit, and the validity of respondent No. 5’s appointment.

Since the Additional Commissioner had not adequately examined these aspects in their proper perspective, the Court held that fresh consideration on the basis of the original selection record was necessary.

The Court therefore declined to express any final opinion on whether respondent No. 5’s BPL document validly evidenced a pre-existing status or whether the petitioner was entitled to widow-category marks.

The Additional Commissioner’s order dated 3 February 2021 was set aside, and the Collector’s order dated 30 September 2020 was restored to the extent that it directed reconsideration of the selection process.

The competent authority was directed to undertake fresh adjudication after examining the original selection record, BPL records, relevant registers, documents submitted by the candidates, objections, and inquiry reports, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable rules, circulars, and instructions.

The affected candidates were to be given an opportunity of hearing, preferably within three months from receipt of the certified order.

The Court expressly left open all questions concerning eligibility, validity of the documents, entitlement to additional marks, comparative merit, and consequential appointment.

W.P. No. 22369 of 2022 was disposed of in view of the same directions.