NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

1 W.P. No.4532/2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33970

1 W.P. No.43709/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

WRIT PETITION No.4532 of 2026

YOGENDRA SINGH GURJAR

Versus

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance :-

Shri Vaibhav Bhargava with Shri Shiv Narayan – Advocates

for the petitioner.

Shri Sunil Jain – Additional Solicitor General with Shri

Kushagra Jain – Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3.

Shri Sudeep Bhargava – Deputy Advocate General for the

respondents No.4 and 5/State.

Reserved on : 24/02/2026

Post on : 06/03/2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

2 W.P. No.4532/2026

_________________________________________________________

ORDER

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner invoking a

Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the verification

committee dated 31.01.2026, whereby the petitioner’s candidature

for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Services) under the Airports

Authority of India (Western Region) was rejected. The petitioner

further seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to

consider his candidature, accept his domicile certificates, and

permit him to participate in the remaining stages of the selection

process.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 issued

Advertisement No.DR-01022025WR dated 11.02.2025 for the

direct recruitment of Non-Executives, including the post of Junior

Assistant (Fire Services). The advertisement mandated that

candidates must be domiciles of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya

Pradesh, or Goa.

3. The petitioner, born on 04.10.2000 and claiming to be a

permanent resident of Madhya Pradesh since birth, applied online

for the said post prior to the last date of submission. During the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

3 W.P. No.4532/2026

online application process, the Petitioner uploaded the domicile

certificate of his father, Shri Laxman Singh Gurjar, dated

14.06.2016, instead of his own within the last date i.e. 24.03.2025.

4. The petitioner was issued an E-Admit Card and successfully

cleared the Computer Based Test (CBT) held on 06.06.2025.

Consequently, he was issued a Call Letter dated 24.12.2025

directing him to appear for document verification on 31.01.2026 at

Vadodara Airport.

5. During the document verification, the petitioner produced his

educational certificates, a Light Motor Vehicle Driving Licence, his

father’s domicile certificate dated 14.06.2016, and his own domicile

certificate dated 05.01.2026. The verification committee orally

rejected the Petitioner’s candidature on the ground that he failed to

produce his own domicile certificate issued prior to the cut-off date

for filing the application form i.e. 24.03.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection

of the Petitioner’s candidature is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of

Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. It was contended that

the advertisement only required a domicile certificate in the

prescribed format and did not stipulate any cut-off date for its

issuance.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

4 W.P. No.4532/2026

7. It was further argued that a domicile certificate merely

evidences a pre-existing fact of permanent residence and does not

create the status. The petitioner’s continuous residence in Madhya

Pradesh is conclusively established by his educational records,

Samagra ID, and his father’s 2016 domicile certificate. The

Petitioner’s own certificate dated 05.01.2026 validates this

continuous status.

8. Lastly, the petitioner contended that the oral rejection without

providing a prior show-cause notice, an opportunity to be heard, or

a reasoned written order amounts to a gross violation of the

principles of natural justice and defeats his legitimate expectation of

fair treatment after successfully clearing the CBT.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raised a

preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition

on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, submitting that the

advertisement explicitly stipulated Mumbai as the forum for dispute

resolution.

10. On merits, it was submitted that Clauses 6(i), 6(ii), 6(x), 8(e)

(iii), and 8 (f) of the Advertisement mandatorily required the

uploading of the candidate's scanned domicile certificate prior to

the cut-off date of 24.03.2025. The petitioner failed to upload his

own valid domicile certificate during the application stage, instead

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

5 W.P. No.4532/2026

uploading his father's certificate, which constitutes incorrect

information.

11. It was further contended that strict adherence to the eligibility

conditions is mandatory in competitive recruitment. The petitioner

produced his own domicile certificate dated 05.01.2026, well after

the cut-off date. Providing relaxation to the Petitioner would

amount to discrimination against other candidates who strictly

adhered to the rules, including approximately 15 candidates who

were similarly rejected for lacking valid domicile certificates on the

cut-off date.

12. The respondents also submitted that the entire selection

process including driving and physical endurance tests has already

been concluded, and directing a re-conduct of the process for a

single candidate would be administratively impracticable

13. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions

advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

pleadings and materials available on record.

14. Before adverting to the merits of the petitioner's entitlement,

the question of territorial jurisdiction is to be dealt with at the very

first stage. This Court has examined the language spelled out with

respect to territorial jurisdiction, and upon close scrutiny, it

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

6 W.P. No.4532/2026

transpires that the language employed in this respect does not

confine the territorial jurisdiction to the courts in Mumbai alone.

Thus, in the absence of the parties' intention to confine the

jurisdiction solely to the courts at Mumbai, this court would

certainly have jurisdiction to dwell upon the issue in dispute.

15. This well-settled principle of law is squarely covered by the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of

A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163 :

1989 SCC OnLine SC 122, wherein at page 175, paragraph 21, the

Apex Court held as under:-

“21. From the foregoing decisions it can be

reasonably deduced that where such an ouster clause

occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of

jurisdiction of other courts. When the clause is clear,

unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract

would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad

idem can be shown, the other courts should avoid

exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the

ouster clause when words like “alone”, “only”,

“exclusive” and the like have been used there may be

no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate

cases the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio

alterius” — expression of one is the exclusion of

another — may be applied. What is an appropriate

case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a

case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of

another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a

contract an intention to exclude all others from its

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

7 W.P. No.4532/2026

operation may in such cases be inferred. It has

therefore to be properly construed.”

16. The next pivotal question that falls for consideration is

whether the candidature of the petitioner can be accepted on the

strength of a domicile certificate issued in the name of his father, or

a domicile certificate obtained by the Petitioner in his own name

after the prescribed cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement.

17. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had applied for

recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Services) and was

declared successful in the Computer Based Test. It is equally

undisputed that the Advertisement No.DR-01022025WR

specifically restricted the eligibility to candidates who are domiciles

of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Goa.

18. A bare perusal of the Advertisement reveals that the rules of

the recruitment were clear, mandatory, and binding. Clause 6(ii)

unequivocally stipulated that "age, educational qualification,

experience and all other eligibility criteria shall be reckoned as on

24.03.2025 (cut-off date)." Furthermore, Clause 8(e)(iii) read with

Clause 8(f) of the Advertisement mandatorily required the

candidates to upload a scanned, self-attested copy of the "Domicile

Certificate in the prescribed format of concerned state" at the time

of submitting the online application.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

8 W.P. No.4532/2026

19. Thus, it is clear that for claiming eligibility as a domicile of

Madhya Pradesh, it was mandatory for the candidate to possess and

upload a valid domicile certificate issued prior to the cut-off date of

24.03.2025. Undisputedly, the Petitioner did not upload his own

domicile certificate during the online application process. Instead,

he uploaded the domicile certificate of his father, Shri Laxman

Singh Gurjar, which was issued on 14.06.2016.

20. As per the pleadings and the documents supplied, the

Petitioner was born on 04.10.2000. Therefore, on the date of the

issuance of his father's domicile certificate in 2016, the petitioner

was a minor (approximately 16 years of age). However, by the cut-

off date of 24.03.2025 stipulated in the Advertisement, the

Petitioner was approximately 24 years of age, having long attained

majority.

21. Following the established principles regarding domicile

certification, once a person attains majority, he is required to obtain

a domicile certificate in his own name. A domicile certificate issued

in favor of a father during the candidate's minority cannot

perpetually serve as the adult candidate's independent proof of

domicile, especially when competing for public employment where

strict adherence to documentary requirements is mandated.

Therefore, the father's certificate dated 14.06.2016 cannot be treated

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

9 W.P. No.4532/2026

as the valid domicile certificate of the Petitioner for the purpose of

this recruitment.

22. The petitioner subsequently produced a domicile certificate

issued in his own name on 05.01.2026. However, this certificate

was obtained well after the cut-off date of 24.03.2025. While the

petitioner contends that a domicile certificate merely evidences a

pre-existing fact of permanent residence, this Court finds force in

the respondents' submission that participation in a recruitment

process requires strict compliance with essential eligibility

conditions. The requirement was not merely to be a domicile, but to

possess and upload the valid proof of such status prior to the cut-off

date.

23. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the

respondents that Clause 8.1 of the Advertisement categorically

provided that any wrong information or incorrect document

uploaded by a candidate may lead to rejection at any stage. By

uploading his father's certificate instead of his own, the Petitioner

failed to meet the mandatory application requirements.

Furthermore, as submitted by the respondents, uniformity was

maintained in the selection process, and approximately 15 other

candidates who did not possess valid domicile certificates on the

cut-off date were similarly rejected. Granting indulgence to the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

10 W.P. No.4532/2026

Petitioner would amount to an arbitrary relaxation of mandatory

conditions and would result in reverse discrimination against those

candidates who strictly adhered to the rules or were similarly

rejected.

24. In absence of any power vested in the respondents under the

Advertisement to relax the condition of producing a valid, cut-off-

domicile certificate, it cannot be said that the respondents

committed any mistake or illegality in rejecting the candidature of

the Petitioner. The selection process is a highly competitive

exercise, and as pleaded by the respondents, the entire process

including physical and driving tests has already been concluded.

The Courts must be slow in interfering with the process of

recruitment where rejection flows automatically from the non-

compliance of mandatory conditions by the candidate himself.

25. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the impugned action of rejecting the

petitioner's candidature does not suffer from any manifest

arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or violation of Articles 14, 16, or

21 of the Constitution of India.

26. Accordingly, this petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6076

11 W.P. No.4532/2026

27. Consequently, the interim order granted earlier stands

vacated and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of

accordingly.

(Jai Kumar Pillai)

Judge

Aiyer*PS