Failure to upload the requisite DESM eligibility certificate by the cutoff date defeats reserved-category candidature.

The Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued Advertisement No. 15 of 2019 for 100 posts of Operation Theatre Assistant, including seven posts reserved for ESM/DESM (General) candidates.

The petitioner applied under the DESM (General) category and appeared in the written examination, securing 36 out of 90 marks.

He was called for document scrutiny on 21 September 2021.

The final result dated 5 March 2022 treated him as a General-category candidate, rather than as DESM (General).

He subsequently represented that he had been wrongly denied consideration under the DESM category and asserted that a reserved post remained vacant.

The respondents rejected his claim by order dated 15 January 2024, stating that he had not furnished the requisite DESM Eligibility Certificate issued by the Zila Sainik Board.

The petitioner challenged the final result and rejection order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The advertisement required DESM candidates to possess a valid Eligibility Certificate on the last date for submitting the online application and to produce it when called upon by the Commission.

It also mandated uploading the relevant category certificate with the application and stipulated that only uploaded documents would be considered.

The petitioner had uploaded only a Relationship Certificate and produced the DESM Eligibility Certificate dated 18 October 2021, after the date of document scrutiny.

1. Whether the petitioner could claim consideration under the DESM (General) category despite not uploading or producing the requisite DESM Eligibility Certificate within the time prescribed by the advertisement?

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment against an ESM/DESM (General) vacancy on the ground that a post was allegedly lying vacant and that he had secured 36 marks in the written examination?

3. Whether the principles applied in Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Sumit and Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana required acceptance of the petitioner’s subsequently produced DESM certificate?

The Court applied the terms of Advertisement No. 15 of 2019, particularly Clause 15, which required DESM candidates to possess a valid Eligibility Certificate issued by the concerned Zila Sainik Board on the last date for submission of the online application and clarified that a mere dependent certificate would not suffice.

Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 required candidates to upload the relevant category certificate and provided that only uploaded documents would be considered; failure to upload the requisite supporting documents rendered the candidature liable to cancellation.

The Court relied on the principle in State of Bihar v. Madhu Kant Ranjan that candidates must comply with all eligibility conditions in the advertisement before the prescribed cut-off date.

It distinguished Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Sumit, where the certificate itself had been issued after the cut-off date, and Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, where the relevant certificate had nevertheless been produced at document scrutiny.

The Court also applied the principle that relief affecting the rights of selected or appointed candidates cannot ordinarily be granted without impleading them.

The Court found that the petitioner had not uploaded the DESM Eligibility Certificate required by the advertisement and had submitted only a Relationship Certificate, which did not satisfy Clause 15.

He had also failed to produce the requisite certificate at the time of document scrutiny on 21 September 2021; the certificate relied upon by him was dated 18 October 2021.

Since the advertisement expressly restricted consideration to documents uploaded with the application, the subsequent certificate could not cure the original deficiency.

The Court held that the authorities were therefore justified in considering the petitioner in his parent General category.

His score of 36 marks was below the General-category cut-off of 56 marks and the waiting-list cut-off of 54 marks, making him ineligible for selection even in that category.

The Court further noted that the respondents had stated that recommendations had already been made for all seven ESM-General posts and that no vacancy remained at the Commission’s level; this assertion was not controverted by replication.

The precedents relied upon by the petitioner were held inapplicable because they concerned certificates issued late or produced at the scrutiny stage, unlike the present case where the certificate was neither uploaded nor produced during scrutiny.

Additionally, the petitioner had not impleaded the selected or appointed candidates whose rights could be affected.

It held that he was not eligible for consideration under the DESM (General) category because he had failed to upload and timely produce the mandatory DESM Eligibility Certificate.

His subsequent certificate could not be accepted contrary to the express conditions of the advertisement.

As he also lacked the requisite marks in the General category, no right to selection or appointment accrued in his favour.

The writ petition challenging the final result dated 5 March 2022 and the rejection order dated 15 January 2024 was dismissed, and any pending application was disposed of.