The Calcutta High Court reiterates that Article 226 does not empower courts to alter or relax explicit procedural requirements in recruitment processes, such as the mandatory production of valid EWS certificates at both application and document verification stages. This judgment upholds existing precedent on strict adherence to recruitment terms and serves as binding authority for future challenges against selection procedures in public employment.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/9283/2025 of RINTU SINHA MAHAPATRA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0187462025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the principle of strict construction of recruitment terms |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether Constitutional Courts can relax, rewrite, or modify unambiguous selection conditions in recruitment notifications regarding reservation certificates. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that candidates applying under the EWS category must produce a valid EWS certificate both as on the closing date of the online application and at the time of document verification (DME), as expressly stipulated in the recruitment notification. The petitioner failed to present a valid EWS certificate at the DME, as required, due to the certificate’s expiry. The Court emphasized that the terms of the recruitment process must be construed strictly and cannot be altered or relaxed by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Well-settled law that judicial review under Article 226 cannot be used to alter or rewrite conditions of recruitment notifications. Compliance with recruitment terms must be strict and literal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, an EWS-category aspirant for recruitment to the CAPFs/Assam Rifles, submitted an EWS certificate valid until March 31, 2024, when applying for the post. However, at the time of document verification on October 5, 2024, the petitioner did not possess a valid EWS certificate valid on that date. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction; all authorities undertaking similar recruitments under the same notification. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly Supreme Court when interpreting identical recruitment notification terms. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that courts cannot rewrite or relax unambiguous requirements in recruitment notifications, including timelines for production of reservation certificates (such as EWS).
- Clarifies that a valid EWS certificate must be produced both as on the closing date of applications and as on the date of document verification/medical examination, if the recruitment terms so require.
- Emphasizes the bar on judicial interference with recruitment procedures clearly laid out in official notifications.
- Lawyers should ensure clients strictly adhere to the procedural prerequisites provided in recruitment notifications; post facto or subsequent compliance will not be condoned by courts under Article 226.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court scrutinized the relevant clauses (6.1 and 6.3) of the recruitment notification and admit card, both of which mandated the production of a valid EWS certificate on two separate occasions: application submission date and document verification (DME).
- The petitioner’s EWS certificate was valid on the application closing date (December 31, 2023) but expired before the DME (October 5, 2024), and no valid certificate was produced at DME.
- The Court reaffirmed the settled law that Constitutional Courts cannot amend, relax, or read down explicit procedural requirements in recruitment notifications through the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to comply with the clearly stipulated requirements, and the recruitment authority’s decision was upheld.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that since the EWS certificate was valid on the application closing date, it should suffice for all stages of the recruitment process.
- Contended that he had applied for renewal and that the expired certificate should be accepted during DME.
Respondent
- Asserted that the recruitment notification explicitly required a valid EWS certificate to be produced at the time of document verification (DME).
- Pointed out that no valid EWS certificate was produced at the DME (October 5, 2024), and the subsequently obtained certificate (dated December 26, 2024) was not relevant.
- Requested dismissal of the writ petition for lack of merit.
Factual Background
The petitioner applied as an EWS candidate for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, SSF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles as per the recruitment notification dated November 24, 2023. He submitted an EWS certificate valid until March 31, 2024. The petitioner took the required examination and appeared for document verification and detailed medical examination on October 5, 2024, but did not have a valid EWS certificate on that date. A subsequent certificate was issued to the petitioner only on December 26, 2024, after the DME.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Clauses 6.1 and 6.3 of the recruitment notification, which mandated that EWS candidates must submit a valid certificate in prescribed format at both the application stage (crucial date: December 31, 2023) and at the DME/document verification stage.
- The Court also referenced the well-established principle that terms of public recruitment are to be construed strictly and cannot be modified by judicial intervention under Article 226.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows existing precedent that recruitment conditions must be strictly and literally construed, and cannot be diluted or rewritten by the Court.