Summary
The Court upheld refusal to award five additional recruitment marks for an NCC B certificate that had not been submitted with the application as the advertisement required. Producing it years after the cutoff and after the physical test did not satisfy that condition. The candidate’s later pleading that he had originally enclosed it was an impermissible improvement on his earlier litigation. An erroneous seventeen-mark entry in the select list did not compel appointment. The State’s appeal was allowed and dismissal of the writ petition restored.
Issues
- Whether later production of an NCC certificate entitled the candidate to additional marks despite the advertised requirement to enclose it with the application.
- Whether the select-list entry or a revised pleading in later litigation justified an appointment direction.
Held
- Applicants must meet advertised conditions by the cutoff unless the recruiting authority extends it. Where the advertisement requires supporting documents with the application, later submission does not satisfy that requirement merely because original verification is contemplated at appointment. (¶¶ 6, 8-9)
- The first writ proceeding contained no pleading that the NCC certificate accompanied the original application. After failing to obtain a positive direction on that basis, the candidate could not improve the case in later proceedings by adopting the contrary position. (¶ 6-7)
- The certificate was submitted after the physical test, years after the application cutoff. The authority therefore correctly refused the additional five marks despite their inclusion in a forwarded select list, and the appellate appointment direction was erroneous. (¶ 8-9)
- The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition restored, without costs. (¶ 10)
Result
State’s appeal allowed without costs; Division Bench appointment direction set aside and dismissal of the writ petition restored.