JUDGMENT : KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The writ petitioner challenges the final merit list dated 23.08.2020 and the consequential appointment order issued in favour of the 4 th respondent, ignoring the petitioner’s merit. 3. It is contended that pursuant to the notification dated 16.06.2020 issued by the 3 rd respondent inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors in various departments under its control, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Microbiology under the BC-A (Women) category as a local candidate of Guntur District. 4. Out of 16 notified posts of Assistant Professor, one post in Microbiology was reserved for the BC-A category. Both the petitioner and the 4 th respondent belong to the BC-A category. 5. The selection process was for total of 100 marks. The marks were awarded on the basis of the following assessment/evaluation: (i) 75 marks for performance in the qualifying PG degree/super-specialty examination; (ii) 1 mark per completed year from the date of passing the qualifying examination, subject to a maximum of 10 marks; (iii) Weightage upto 15 marks for contract service in Government institutions, calculated as: (a) 2.5 marks for every six months of service in Tribal areas; (b) 2 marks for every six months of service in Rural areas. 6. Clause 11(12) of the notification stipulates that service certificates of doctors working on a contract basis must be issued by the competent authority, namely the Director/Commissioner, as the case may be. 7. After scrutiny of applications and certificates, a provisional merit list dated 05.08.2020 was published for the post of Assistant Professor in Microbiology. In the said provisional list, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.13 with 53.21 marks. The 4 th respondent was placed at Serial No.20 with 52 marks. 8. In the provisional assessment, no weightage marks were awarded to the 4 th respondent for contract service. 9. However, in the final merit list dated 23.08.2020, the 4 th respondent was placed at Serial No.4 after being awarded an additional 4 marks towards contract service, increasing her total from 52 to 56 marks. Consequently, the petitioner was pushed down to Serial No.15. 10. 9. However, in the final merit list dated 23.08.2020, the 4 th respondent was placed at Serial No.4 after being awarded an additional 4 marks towards contract service, increasing her total from 52 to 56 marks. Consequently, the petitioner was pushed down to Serial No.15. 10. Immediately upon publication of the final merit list, the petitioner raised objections through email dated 23.08.2020 and submitted a detailed representation on 29.08.2020. Despite this, counselling was conducted on 02.09.2020, and the 4 th respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor in Microbiology. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the service certificate relied upon by the 4 th respondent was not uploaded along with her online application at the time of submission. The said certificate was produced only subsequently, pursuant to the call for objections issued along with the provisional merit list. 12. It is further contended that the Principal of the concerned college issued the service certificate. However, the notification mandates that certificates for contract services in Government institutions must be issued by the competent authority, namely the Director of Medical Education/Director of Health/Commissioner of Family Welfare. 13. The notification further stipulates that candidates claiming weightage must be working on contract service under the Government as on the date of the notification and must produce a certificate issued by the concerned Director. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the certificate was not issued by the competent authority prescribed under the notification. 14. It is contended that as per the contents of the certificate, the 4 th respondent was not working in the said institution as on the date of the notification. The certificate was not part of the documents uploaded at the time of initial application and scrutiny. Therefore, the 4 th respondent was not entitled to any weightage marks for contract service. 15. It is submitted that the relevant date for determining eligibility and awarding marks is the date of submission of the application and initial scrutiny. Documents produced subsequently, after publication of the provisional merit list, ought not to have been considered for awarding additional marks. 16. By awarding 04 additional marks in the final merit list on the basis of such subsequently produced and invalid certificate, the respondents have committed a grave illegality, resulting in arbitrary displacement of the petitioner in the merit ranking and wrongful appointment of the 4 th respondent. 17. Ms. 16. By awarding 04 additional marks in the final merit list on the basis of such subsequently produced and invalid certificate, the respondents have committed a grave illegality, resulting in arbitrary displacement of the petitioner in the merit ranking and wrongful appointment of the 4 th respondent. 17. Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent would contend that the 4 th respondent is an MBBS graduate later pursued post- graduation in Microbiology. Thereafter, the 4 th respondent worked as a Senior Resident in the Government Medical College, Ananthapur with effect from 02.12.2013 to 31.07.2014. Subsequently, she joined as a Medical Research Scientist at Viral Research and Diagnostics Laboratories (VRDL), a programmed co-funded by the collaboration of the Central and State Governments. In that regard Government Medical College, Ananathapuramu had applied to set up the said institution on its campus. The Central Government accordingly sanctioned the setting up of the said institution at the Government Medical College in 2016. A memorandum of understanding was also entered into with the 3 rd respondent. In such a program, the 4 th respondent was selected on 17.02.2018 and worked until 11.04.2020. It is further contended that the Principal of the Government College is the Principal Investigator. Thus, he has been empowered to issue the service certificates to the candidates who work on contract basis. 18. As per the recruitment notification, weightage marks were provided on the basis of the respective educational qualifications and experience of the candidates. Weightage marks of 15 have been provided to candidates who have worked on contract service in Governmental Institutions located in tribal and rural areas. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent that the 3 rd respondent considered the period of service rendered as a medical research scientist with VRDL. In the light of the clarification issued in this regard vide memo No.5549/A/1/2015 HM&FW (A1) Department dated 25.05.2015. The learned counsel, relying on the clauses of the said memo, particularly clause 3(i), contends that the period of contractual service rendered by a medical officer at the governmental level, with financial concurrence of the Government, would be counted, even if their services were discontinued for no fault on the part of the said medical officer. The learned counsel, relying on the clauses of the said memo, particularly clause 3(i), contends that the period of contractual service rendered by a medical officer at the governmental level, with financial concurrence of the Government, would be counted, even if their services were discontinued for no fault on the part of the said medical officer. The Principal of the institution, being the Principal Investigator, has been empowered to issue appointment orders to the candidates selected for appointment for a period of 11 months on a contract basis, and the same was extended up to 16.11.2020. However, the 4 th respondent resigned from the job on 11.04.2020. To the said effect, the certificates of service have been issued to the 4 th respondent, and the same is in accordance with the law. There is no illegality or fraud in the submission of the said document in support of the 4 th respondent's claim for weightage marks. It is thus contended that, since she worked with VRDL for a period, she is entitled to claim weightage marks. It is further argued that responding to the call of the 3 rd respondent to submit the objections, if any, to the provisional merit list, on verification of the same, having noticed that no weightage marks were awarded to her, the 4 th respondent sought to consider her experience at VRDL, Government Medical College, Ananthapuramu. The 3 rd respondent, considering the request of the petitioner, awarded weightage marks, and thus the 4 th respondent has been placed above the petitioner herein. It is also contended that not only in the case of the 4 th respondent but also in respect of cases of the similarly situated candidates, the respondents have taken on record the objections to the provisional merit list and granted revised marks before issuing the final merit list. 19. Considered the submissions. For adjudication of the issue, it is relevant to extract clause 11(12) of the recruitment notification which reads as follows: “Clause 11(12): Service certificate (contract) – Doctors who are working on contract service with Government should produce service certificate from concerned Director/Commissioner.” 20. As per the above clause of the notification, the candidates should be working as on the date of the recruitment notification, and the Director of Medical Education must issue the certificate of rendering contractual service. As per the above clause of the notification, the candidates should be working as on the date of the recruitment notification, and the Director of Medical Education must issue the certificate of rendering contractual service. In the facts of the case, the petitioner is not working as of the date of the notification, as she resigned from the assignment with the VRDL a few months before the issuance of the notification. As per the notification, candidates who are working as on the date of the notification are entitled to claim the weightage marks. The clarification issued under memo dated 25.05.2015 by the 1 st respondent would not be to the benefit of the 4 th respondent herein since she had voluntarily resigned from the assignment. In other words, she was neither removed nor had her assignment cancelled by the respondents with VRDL nor the project was discontinued. Unless such a situation of discontinuance exists, the 4 th respondent cannot avail of the benefit of the said circular/memo. Apart from the same, she did not submit the documents in support of her claim for weightage marks along with the application. Therefore, based on the service certificate which was uploaded after publication of the provisional merit list, awarding marks is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the notification. More importantly, about the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have also accepted the documents uploaded of other candidates pursuant to the provisional seniority list is concerned, it is noted that in none of the cases of accepting such of those documents submitted pursuant to the provisional merit list, the final marks were not increased after accepting the documents submitted at the time of the provisional merit list notably there has been some instances of reduction of marks, except in the case of the 4 th respondent. It is further to be noted that only those of the remarks as mentioned relating to documents or weightage mentioned under the remarks column of the provisional merit list alone could be considered, and not any other documents. 21. In the provisional merit list, the documents mentioned under the remark column were to be enclosed as per the proceedings of the DME dated 05.08.2020. 21. In the provisional merit list, the documents mentioned under the remark column were to be enclosed as per the proceedings of the DME dated 05.08.2020. The objections filed per the remarks noted in the remarks column were considered (eg.) Sl.No.37 on the provisional list: the remarks column states that contract service marks are not eligible for the final merit list. It appears that his request/objections were considered, and marks were awarded. Whereas as per the said remark column, only a local status report was sought for the 4 th respondent. However, the marks have been altered, by accepting the contractual service certificate uploaded after the publication of the provisional merit list has been accepted. Therefore, accepting the documents after the declaration of marks and awarding marks based on documents uploaded subsequently is not in accordance with the contemplated procedure. 22. Further in the instant case it appears from the record that one candidate viz., Sri Mudhigeti Nagaraja belonging to BC-A category, who was standing at serial No.3 in the provisional merit list is not shown in the final merit list. 23. In my considered view, considering the certificates produced by the unofficial respondent after finalization of the provisional merit list and awarding marks without verifying the said certificates as to their validity, for the above mentioned reasons is bad, irregular and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the recruitment notification. Therefore, the final merit list insofar as it relates to the 4 th respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to pass consequential orders accordingly within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.