Mandatory submission of candidate-specific domicile certificates by the cut-off date is an essential eligibility condition.

The Petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Services) under Advertisement No. DR-01022025WR.

The recruitment mandated candidates to be domiciles of specific states, including Madhya Pradesh, and required uploading a domicile certificate by the cut-off date of 24.03.2025.

The Petitioner, aged 24 at the time of application, uploaded his father’s 2016 domicile certificate instead of his own.

After clearing the Computer Based Test, the Petitioner presented his own domicile certificate dated 05.01.2026 during document verification.

The verification committee orally rejected his candidature for failing to produce a valid domicile certificate issued prior to the cut-off date.

The Petitioner challenged this rejection via a Writ of Certiorari.

1. Whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition despite the advertisement stipulating Mumbai as the forum for dispute resolution.

2. Whether a candidate can satisfy eligibility criteria by submitting a parent’s domicile certificate or a personal certificate obtained after the prescribed cut-off date.

The Court applied the principle regarding ouster clauses from *A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies* (1989), holding that unless exclusive words like "alone" or "only" are used, the jurisdiction of other competent courts is not ousted.

Regarding recruitment, the Court emphasized strict adherence to the terms of the advertisement and the mandatory nature of cut-off dates for eligibility.

It further applied the principle that once a person attains majority, they must possess a domicile certificate in their own name for public employment purposes.

The Court first resolved the jurisdictional challenge, noting the advertisement did not explicitly exclude other courts' jurisdiction.

On the merits, the Court found that Clauses 6(ii) and 8(e)(iii) of the advertisement made the cut-off date of 24.03.2025 mandatory for all eligibility criteria.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner, being 24 years old, could not rely on his father’s certificate issued during his minority.

The personal certificate obtained in 2026 was post-dated and thus invalid for the recruitment cycle.

The Court observed that granting relaxation to the Petitioner would result in "reverse discrimination" against approximately 15 other candidates whose candidatures were rejected on identical grounds.

Since the respondents lacked the power to relax these mandatory conditions under the advertisement, the rejection was deemed lawful.

It held that the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature was neither arbitrary nor illegal as he failed to comply with the mandatory documentary requirements by the cut-off date.

The final holding dismissed the Writ Petition, vacated the previous interim order, and disposed of all pending applications.