Sanket S/O Waman Thakare v. Airports Authority Of India, Thr. Regional Manager, Western Region, Mumbai

1/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.1206 OF 2026 SANKET S/O WAMAN THAKARE VS AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THR. REGIONAL MANAGER, WESTERN REGION, MUMBA ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders and Registrar's orders ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Ms Aastha R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner/s Mr. Deoul Pathak, Advocate for the respondent -------------------------------

CORAM

: ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATE :

12.03.2026 P.C.

1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner, who had applied for the post of "Junior Assistant (Fire Services)" pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent for direct recruitment of non-executive personnel in various disciplines under the Airports Authority of India, Western Region, came to be disqualified vide the impugned communication dated 29.01.2026. The reason assigned for such disqualification was the petitioner's failure to submit the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) Certificate before the stipulated cut-off date, i.e. 24.03.2025. There is no dispute with regard to the said factual position.

3.

The OBC (NCL) certificate was submitted by the petitioner on 27.03.2025, which is beyond the cut-off date, i.e., 24.03.2025. Though the impugned communication

2/5 does not specifically state that the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) Certificate submitted by the petitioner was not in the prescribed format for appointment to a post under the Government of India, it is stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent that, Clause (11)(a) of the recruitment notification was reproduced in Clause (5) of the impugned communication. The said clause contains instructions to the candidates to ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions and other norms and possess the requisite eligibility-related documents as prescribed in the advertisement. Thus, it is stated that though it was not mentioned in clear terms, the said reason of nonsubmission of the OBC (NCL) Certificate is covered by the paragraph (5) of the impugned communication. It is, therefore, submitted that it does not amount to supplanting reason, which was not there in the impugned order. 4.

According to the petitioner, the requirement to submit the OBC (NCL) Certificate for the financial year 2024-25 before completion of the said financial year is contrary to law. In support of her contention, reliance is placed on the judgment in Raghvendra Singh and anr. ..v.. Union Public Service Commission and anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9058.

5.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the purpose for prescribing a schedule for every stage of the selection process is to ensure

3/5 its completion within time, and if relaxation is granted in respect of the cut-off date, the entire selection process would be delayed.

6.

It is pointed out that in the second stage of the selection process, several requirements are to be complied with, namely bio-metric verification, document verification, physical measurement, medical test, driving test and physical endurance test.

7.

It is stated that, the physical endurance test comprises 100-meter running, 50-meter casualty carrying, pole climbing test, rope climbing test and ladder climbing test. It is submitted that adherence to the schedule is necessary, as missing any stage may disturb the entire selection process. 8.

After the stage of document verification, certain tests, including the medical test and other related tests, are required to be conducted on specific scheduled dates. It is pointed out that such tests were conducted by setting up a recruitment camp at Vadodara by the Managing Committee, wherein specialized doctors, such as a General Physician, Ophthalmologist, Orthopedic Specialist, ENT Specialist, etc. are members of the said committee. 9.

He accordingly submits that since the petitioner missed the cut-off date and also failed to submit the OBC (NCL) Certificate in the prescribed format before the cutoff date, it would now be difficult to constitute the committee again for a single candidate and to carry out the

4/5 selection process.

10.

In reply to an argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that seeking an OBC (NCL) Certificate for the financial year 2024-25 and requiring the candidate to submit the same before 24.03.2025, is contrary to law, it is submitted that the respondent had not sought the OBC (NCL) Certificate for the financial year 2024-25 but the certificate issued during the financial year 2024-25. Therefore, no illegality is committed. 11.

In light of the rival submissions, we have perused the record and the affidavit on record. It is an admitted fact that the OBC (NCL) Certificate was submitted by the petitioner after the cut-off date, i.e., 24.03.2025. Furthermore, the certificate submitted by the petitioner is not in the format prescribed for appointment to a post under the Government of India.

12.

Even if a lenient view is taken with regard to the cutoff date, the mandatory requirement of submitting the certificate in the prescribed format has not been complied with.

13.

The judgment in Raghvendra Singh and anr. (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, it was stipulated that an OBC (NCL) candidate must submit the requisite certificate based on the income for the preceding three financial years, along with certain other conditions. In light of those stipulations, the Court observed that such a

5/5 condition would be contrary to the applicable rules. Whereas, there is no such requirement stipulated. Thus, the aforesaid authority is of no assistance to the petitioner. 14.

In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Signed by: Mr. Niranjan Thawre Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/03/2026 18:25:55