Facts: The petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Sevika/Helper at the Padoshi Anganwadi Center following an advertisement dated 27.07.2022. A primary eligibility criterion was that the candidate must be a resident of the village where the center is located. The petitioner submitted a Gram Sevak certificate, a Ration Card, and an Aadhaar Card, all indicating her residence at village Padoshi. Although she ranked second in merit, she became the first eligible candidate after the top-ranked individual was disqualified for being over-aged. However, her appointment was withheld following a complaint from the third-ranked candidate alleging that the petitioner actually resided in Sherewadi. An inquiry report by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) concluded she was not a resident of Padoshi, relying on her EPIC Card (Voter ID) which showed an address in Sherewadi and hearsay information regarding her son’s schooling. Consequently, the authorities disqualified her, and this decision was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner challenged the disqualification order dated 06.02.2023 and the subsequent appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.
Issue: Whether the petitioner met the residential eligibility criteria based on the documents submitted, and whether the authorities were justified in disqualifying her by relying on an EPIC card and hearsay evidence despite her possessing other valid residential proofs prescribed in the advertisement.
Holding: Yes, the petitioner met the eligibility criteria. The court held that the disqualification was illegal and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post within four weeks.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the recruitment rules and the advertisement required a candidate to submit only one of three documents to prove residence: a Gram Sevak certificate, a self-declaration, or either an Aadhaar Card, Ration Card, or EPIC Card. The petitioner successfully provided a valid Gram Sevak certificate, an Aadhaar Card, and a Ration Card, all of which unequivocally showed her residence as Padoshi. The Court emphasized that if a candidate possesses any one of the prescribed documents showing the correct address, the authorities cannot insist on all documents showing the same or disqualify her based on one conflicting document (the EPIC card). Furthermore, the CDPO's inquiry report was deemed vague and based on hearsay, which cannot override statutory documentary evidence. The Court also noted that the authorities cannot change eligibility criteria or add higher burdens of proof at a later stage of the selection process.