Strict compliance with recruitment advertisement conditions regarding competent authority and document verification timelines is mandatory.

The appellant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for the post of English Teacher (T-Cadre) following a March 2019 recruitment advertisement

After clearing the selection process, she attended document verification on January 21, 2021, submitting a caste certificate issued by a Naib Tehsildar dated January 9, 1996

Although initially offered an appointment, her candidature was rejected on August 13, 2021, for failing to produce a permanent caste certificate issued by a Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) as mandated by the advertisement

The appellant challenged this via Writ Petition (S) No. 4617 of 2021, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on December 10, 2025

The appellant contended that an administrative embargo (2018–2022) prevented her from obtaining the SDO-issued certificate earlier and that her Naib Tehsildar certificate was valid under older government circulars

This writ appeal seeks to set aside the Single Judge's dismissal

1. Whether the rejection of the appellant’s candidature was valid due to non-compliance with the specific requirement of an SDO-issued caste certificate at the time of verification

2. Whether a subsequently obtained caste certificate (issued after the prescribed deadline) can satisfy the eligibility conditions stipulated in a recruitment advertisement

The Court primarily applied Clauses 7 and 8 of the recruitment advertisement, which mandated that all qualifications and certificates must be obtained before the date of result declaration and that permanent caste certificates must be issued by a "competent authority" (specifically the SDO) to avail reservation benefits

It further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court and ors. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 405), which establishes that compliance with eligibility conditions at the prescribed time is essential and cannot be waived by later document submission

The Court observed that the advertisement’s terms were "clear and unambiguous"

Clause 7 explicitly stated that certificates obtained after the date of result declaration would not be considered

Clause 8 specifically required an SDO-issued certificate for reservation and age relaxation

While the appellant possessed a certificate from a Naib Tehsildar, the Court found this did not meet the mandatory criteria of the advertisement

Although the appellant eventually obtained the requisite SDO certificate on February 9, 2022, the Court held that this post-facto compliance did not cure the deficiency existing at the time of document verification

The Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding administrative embargo and legitimate expectation, concluding that the authorities acted in strict conformity with the recruitment rules

The Court affirmed that the appellant’s failure to produce the SDO-issued certificate at the relevant stage of verification rendered her ineligible for the reserved post

The 18-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned [para. 2], but the appeal was dismissed on merits with no order as to costs