The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-selection of a candidate for the post of Office Subordinate, ruling that the stipulation to produce original certificates on the specific date fixed for verification is a mandatory condition. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, held that failure to comply with such a mandatory requirement justifies the rejection of candidature.
The Court was adjudicating a plea filed by a candidate who had been provisionally selected for a post in the District Judiciary but was subsequently rejected for failing to produce the original transfer study certificate on the scheduled verification date. The Bench upheld the rejection, distinguishing the case from precedents where such conditions were deemed directory rather than mandatory.
Background
The petitioner, Salikameni Pedda Madhu Yadav, applied for the post of ‘Office Subordinate’ in the District Judiciary, Kurnool District, under Notification No. 10/2022-RC, dated October 21, 2022. He was provisionally selected for the position.
The recruitment process required candidates to appear for certificate verification on September 6, 2023. On this date, the petitioner failed to submit the original transfer study certificate, although he claimed to have produced a self-attested copy. The petitioner alleged that he attempted to submit the original document two days later, on September 8, 2023, but the respondents refused to accept it. Consequently, his candidature was rejected.
Challenging this rejection, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3349 of 2025, seeking a direction to the respondents to select him on par with other selected candidates in the BC ‘D’ category.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Contentions: Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Ravikanth (representing Sri K. Veeramani), admitted that the original document was not submitted on the fixed date of September 6, 2023. However, he argued that the petitioner had produced a self-attested copy and subsequently tried to submit the original.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sweety Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others (2023 SCC OnLine 1212), the counsel contended that Condition No. V in Para No. 10 of the notification was not mandatory. He argued that “when production of the original certificate was not mandatory, non-production of original at the time of interview would not be sufficient to reject the candidature of a candidate, who was placed in the merit.”
Respondents’ Contentions: Sri L. Sai Manoj Reddy, representing Standing Counsel Sri N.V. Sumanth, opposed the petition on behalf of the High Court and the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. He argued that Condition No. V in Para No. 10 of the Notification explicitly stated that applicants must produce original certificates on the day mentioned by the High Court. The condition further warned that failure to do so would result in the rejection of candidature.
The respondents denied the petitioner’s claim that he attempted to submit the document on September 8, 2023. Additionally, the counsel raised the issue of laches, pointing out that the selection process was completed in 2023, and the selected candidates had joined their posts in September 2023. He argued that the petition filed in 2025 was barred by delay.
Court’s Analysis
Mandatory Nature of the Notification Condition The Division Bench closely examined Condition No. (V) in Para No. 10 of the recruitment notification, which read:
“The applicant has to produce original certificates on the day mentioned by the High Court for verification. If the applicant fails to produce any of the required certificates, his/her candidature will be rejected.”
Interpreting this clause, the Court observed:
“The aforesaid condition appears to us to be mandatory. It in clear terms fixed the date for production of the document in original for verification. It further provides the consequence for the non-production of the original document on the date fixed for verification. The consequence provided is that the candidature shall be rejected. This consequence of the candidature being rejected, lends support to the view that the provision is mandatory.”
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the condition was merely directory.
Distinguishing Precedents The Court addressed the petitioner’s reliance on Sweety Kumari and Aarav Jain v. The Bihar Public Service Commission (2022 (14) SCC 35). The Bench clarified that in those cases, the Supreme Court had held that rejection was unjustified only “once such a condition of production of the original certificate was not mandatory.”
The High Court distinguished the present case, stating:
“There is no dispute on the proposition of law as laid down in the aforesaid case… But, the said principle would not apply in the present case as here, the Condition No.(V) in para No.10, is mandatory and not directory.”
Delay and Laches The Bench also took a serious view of the delay in filing the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficient explanation for approaching the Court in 2025 for a cause of action that arose in 2023.
“Once the petitioner’s case is that on 08.09.2023, the petitioner approached with the original document and the same was not accepted, he would have approached the Court immediately for redressal of his grievances. After the selection is completed and the selected candidates have joined in the year 2023 itself, filing of writ petition in 2025 belatedly without any sufficient explanation cannot be sustained,” the Court held.
Decision
The High Court concluded that there was no illegality in the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature. The Writ Petition was dismissed as being devoid of merits. No order as to costs was imposed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Salikameni Pedda Madhu Yadav vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3349 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
- Counsel for Petitioner: Sri P. Ravikanth for Sri K. Veeramani
- Counsel for Respondents: Sri L. Sai Manoj Reddy for Sri N.V. Sumanth
