Case Summary: Corporation vs. 1 Respondent – Supreme Court Judgement

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has passed a judgement in the case of Corporation vs. 1 Respondent regarding the consideration of work experience certificates for job applications. The judgement sheds light on the proper adherence to application requirements and sets a precedent for future similar cases. Stay informed on this crucial decision by reading the full details below.


  • The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka directed the appellant-Corporation to consider the claim of the respondent.
  • The direction was based on the work experience certificate for appointment.
  • The order was to be in accordance with the law.
  • The judgement specified that it was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
  • The judgement clarified that it should not be considered as a precedent.

Also Read: Legal Analysis in Custody Battle Resolution


  • Applicant required to furnish a certificate of work experience of 3 years/2 years in a reputed company for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant.
  • Separate application required for each post
  • Incomplete applications will be rejected without reasons

Also Read: Legal Analysis on Challenging Compromise Decree


  • The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the LPA filed by the 1 respondent based on her higher marks in the qualifying exam, despite not enclosing the experience certificate.
  • The Corporation rejected 31 applications for Senior Assistant and 106 applications for Junior Assistant that did not enclose required documents, including experience certificates.
  • The 1 respondent’s application was rejected by the Corporation for not submitting the experience certificate as required by the advertisement.
  • The Division Bench’s reliance on Seema Kumari Sharma case was deemed inappropriate as it did not apply to the current situation.
  • Even if there was a reasonable justification for not enclosing the certificate, other candidates with higher marks were also rejected for similar reasons.
  • The Division Bench’s direction for the Corporation to consider the 1 respondent without specifying the post was considered a manifest error.
  • The High Court upheld the Corporation’s decision to reject the 1 respondent’s application due to non-fulfillment of the necessary experience certificate requirement as per the advertisement.

Also Read: State vs. Shajimon & Ors.: Bail Decision Under NDPS Act


  • Merely approaching the High Court by filing a writ petition does not justify exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if it overreaches the rights of eligible candidates.
  • The appeal is allowed, and the High Court’s judgment dated 1 February 2019 is set aside.
  • No costs are awarded in this case.
  • Any pending applications are disposed of.


Case Number: C.A. No.-000344-000344 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *