1. Public employment carries a distinct constitutional and civic mandate that differentiates it from private-sector contracting, as salaries and pensions are paid from the public exchequer. The funds are derived directly from taxpayer resources intended to serve the common good. Treating public posts as mere operational costs or casual labour compromises the quality of public administration, erodes institutional memory, and turns public service into an arbitrary system of patronage rather than a transparent mechanism for equitable governance. We have emphasized the importance of the recruitment procedure in public service, as the present matter touches upon the eligibility criteria determined by a public body and the way the Petitioners responded to meet the eligibility requirements.

2. The issue in the present matter relates to appointments to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), Sub-Engineer (Civil), Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group C), and various other posts in the Respondent No.2 - Nashik Municipal Corporation (‘NMC’). Respondent No. 2 - NMC issued Advertisement No. 01/2025 dated 29th October 2025 inviting applications for the aforesaid posts. The Petitioners, claiming to fulfill the eligibility criteria and possessing the prescribed educational qualification and required work experience, applied for the said posts with the necessary documents. The Respondents permitted them to participate in an online examination. The Petitioners were called upon to be present for verification of original documents regarding educational qualifications and work experience.

3. During the verification, the Respondents sought bank account statements reflecting salary credits and other financial records. The Petitioners furnished appointment orders, experience certificates, salary slips and salary vouchers. Respondent No.2, being the Recruiting Authority, independently sought verification of the Petitioners’ documents from their previous employers. The respective employers furnished replies and the necessary documents. Aggrieved by the Respondents’ insistence on bank statements and verification of salary slips/vouchers, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.7931 of 2026 in this Court. By its order dated 2nd July 2026, this Court permitted Respondent No.2 to verify the documents and take an appropriate decision within 3 weeks from the date of the order.

4. Respondent No. 2 rejected the Petitioners’ applications on various grounds specific to each Petitioner. The common grounds for rejection were that work experience certificates could not be verified; bank account statements did not disclose receipt of salary as per the cash vouchers furnished by the Petitioners; the bank statements did not reflect deductions pertaining to TDS, ESIC or PF contributions; the cash vouchers furnished by the Petitioners did not inspire confidence regarding their genuineness; and the evidence of private service in individual enterprises could not be ascertained. Thus, Respondent No. 2 rejected the Petitioners’ candidatures, holding that they did not meet the required eligibility criteria. It is these rejection orders that are assailed in the present Petition.

5. We have heard Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners; Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, learned AGP representing the State; and Mr. Rohit Sakhadev, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and have perused the record with their assistance.

6. As per the advertisement, the eligibility criteria for the post of ‘Junior Engineer (Transport) (Group C)’ was as under;

                    (i) A candidate must possess a degree in M.E. Highway Engineering/M.Tech Transportation Engineering from a recognised University and

                    (ii) Three years’ engineering work experience of having worked in any Government/Semi-Government/Local Body/Private Organisation.

7. The Petitioners submitted their applications along with documents such as appointment letters from the previous employers and cash vouchers showing receipt of salary in cash every month for the past three years.

8. Respondent No. 2-NMC attempted to verify the genuineness of these certificates, cash vouchers and bank statements from the Petitioners’ previous employers. The Petitioners were also called upon to furnish TDS certificates, PF contribution proofs, ESIC certificates, etc., to corroborate the receipt of cash salary from their respective erstwhile employers. The Petitioners failed to furnish the necessary documents, resulting in rejection of their candidatures.

9. Mr. Patil’s grievance is that requiring the Petitioners to furnish certificates and documents supporting their claim of work experience amounted to changing the ‘rules of the game’ of recruitment. According to him, Respondent No.2 has introduced an altogether new condition for establishing work experience, which was neither part of the advertisement nor of any Government circular laying down the recruitment process. According to him, Respondent No.2 has nowhere recorded any finding that the work experience certificates or the qualifications were false and fabricated. Thus, contending that the impugned action of the Respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, Mr. Patil has urged the Court to quash the impugned rejection orders.

10. Mr. Sakhadev, on the other hand, contested the Petitioners’ claims, stating that the impugned orders are well reasoned and were passed after considering the material/documents available on record. He also submitted that the Respondents had every right to require proof of the Petitioners’ claims regarding work experience, and thus, calling for such proof is not an arbitrary exercise of power. He further submitted that the failure to provide the necessary documents to establish the veracity of their work experience claims resulted in the Respondents issuing the rejection orders. Thus, Mr. Sakhadev prayed that the Petition be dismissed.

11. Ms. Deshmukh supported the arguments of Mr. Sakhadev and prayed that the Petition be dismissed.

12. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, we examined the documents furnished by the Petitioners as proof of work experience. The documents include cash vouchers showing that the Petitioners received cash amounts ranging from Rs.6,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month towards salary from their erstwhile employers. All the cash vouchers were issued by private entities. The Petitioners claim to have worked for the past three years with private enterprises. There are also letters of the employers certifying that the Petitioners had worked in their respective private enterprises for the past three years, at the salaries shown in the appointment letters. From a perusal of these documents, what struck us the most is that the salaries drawn by the Petitioners do not even satisfy the minimum wage criteria laid down by law. The cash vouchers also appear to be replicas of each other, except for the change in dates. Moreover, the cash vouchers do not indicate any TDS, ESIC or Provident Fund deduction. The cash vouchers, by themselves, failed to establish the work experience of the Petitioners as required by the NMC for the post of ‘Junior Engineer (Transport) (Group C)’. The Petitioners were all given an opportunity to furnish documents to establish the veracity of their work experience and the cash vouchers. However, none of the Petitioners were able to corroborate their work experience claims.

13. Mr. Patil relied on the decision in Prasoon Sharma v. State of Haryana & Anr.(2026 SCC OnLine P & H 1070), to support his contention that requiring candidates to furnish additional documents amounts to altering the eligibility criteria, and that the public establishment cannot undertake character verification, antecedent enquiry or confirmation of credentials.

14. We have perused the decision relied upon by Mr. Patil. The facts in that case are entirely distinct from those in the present matter. In the facts of the said case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Prasoon (Supra) held that unless empowered by a statutory framework, a Public Service Commission cannot undertake character verification, document verification, etc., while discharging its constitutional/statutory duty of selection and recommendation as these issues remain within the exclusive authority of the appointing authority/employer. Hence, the cited decision does not aid the Petitioners’ case any further.

15. In any case, Clause 1.8 of the General Conditions of the advertisement itself provides that the employer reserves its right to verify the information and claims made in the application, as well as the documents annexed thereto, and that if the same are found uncorroborated or false, the candidature is liable to be rejected. Thus, the advertisement itself empowers Respondent No.2 to take measures to verify the certificates annexed to the applications submitted by the Petitioners. Having done so and finding the same to be untrustworthy, dubious and uncorroborated, Respondent No.2 who is the custodian of ensuring an objective and fair appointment procedure is well within its authority/rights to reject the candidature of the Petitioners on such count. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer to ensure that a candidate has requisite proof of credentials, antecedents and experience to be duly appointed. We thus find no infirmity in the impugned orders. In such context, we may however add that when candidates from private employment are being invited, their experience should be genuine, realistic and fully justified by the certificates issued to them. This can happen only when the employer who appoints such employees is reputed and complies with the basic norms of any private employment, which may be a contract of service and all other relevant credentials necessary to demonstrate that the employment was genuine, on genuine projects, etc. It is hence necessary to give credence to those candidates who have worked with reputed private entities and genuine employers.

16. Insofar as Petitioner No.6 - Nilesh Mahendra Sangale is concerned, the documents on record show that he has furnished proof of TDS deduction and other documents corroborating his claim of work experience in private enterprise. The rejection order of his candidature appears to be a verbatim copy of the other rejection orders. The order fails to take into account that this Petitioner has furnished the necessary corroborative documents as sought by Respondent No.2. Hence, insofar as this Petitioner is concerned, we have no hesitation in quashing the order dated 28th July 2026 passed by Respondent No.2, rejecting the candidature of Petitioner No.6 - Nilesh Sangale. Respondent No.2 is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to Petitioner No.6 and allow him to furnish the necessary documents. Petitioner No.6 - Nilesh Mahendra Sangale is directed to appear before the concerned authority of the NMC on 24th August 2026 with all the necessary documents. Respondent No.2 – NMC shall take a decision on his candidature within a period of two weeks thereafter and communicate the same to Petitioner No.6 forthwith.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prayers of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are rejected. The Petition relating to Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 is dismissed. We hasten to record that the Petitioners ought to have ideally challenged their respective rejection orders separately, as the documents supporting their individual claims are different. However, as we proceeded to hear the Petition in its present form only in the interest of justice and to avoid delay in dispensing justice to the Petitioners.

18. Before we conclude, it is essential to stress the need for careful and cautious criteria when assessing eligibility for public service positions. In this case, the NMC required work experience of three years in any private enterprise. Thus, it would be prudent for the public authority to specify clear criteria or descriptions of the private enterprises, ideally those that are reputable and well-known. It is a well-known fact that the caliber of public service depends on the quality of its personnel, and recruitment is the foundation of that quality.

19. The Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.