1997 JTR(SC) 1055
1998 AIR(SC) 91 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 4043 ; 1997 2 CLR 478 ; 1997 77 FLR 240 ; 1997 7 JT 287 ; 1998 LIC 378 ; 1998 2 LLJ 59 ; 1997 3 LLN 70 ; 1998 1 RLW(Raj) 5 ; 1997 3 RSJ 531 ; 1997 5 Scale 393 ; 1997 6 SCC 574 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1744 ; 1997 SCR 224 ; 1997 4 SCT 32 ; 1997 5 SLR 236 ; 1997 2 UJ 400 ; 1997 KHC 987 ; 1997 7 Supreme 128
1997(7) Supreme 128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sujata V. Manohar & M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
State of Rajasthan -Appellant
versus
Hitendra Kumar Bhatt -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5313 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7398 of 1997)
Decided on 1-8-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.S. Bhati, M.K. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Rajendra Singhvi and A.K. Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
A cut-off date by which all requirements relating to qualifications for a post have to be met can not be ignored in an individual case.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.16
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law, read with the constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, requires that appointments to public posts be governed strictly by the criteria prescribed in the advertisement. The advertisement issued on 9.6.92 specified eligibility conditions, including possession of a B.S.T.C. or equivalent qualification, and expressly stipulated that no certificates or marksheets would be accepted after the deadline for receipt of applications. These provisions operate together to ensure that eligibility is determined as on the prescribed cutoff date, and any relaxation in the absence of statutory authority would undermine the fairness of the selection process.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) eligibility for appointment is determined as on the cutoff date specified in the advertisement; (ii) qualifications must be possessed on that date and not merely acquired later; (iii) interim orders cannot override the substantive eligibility criteria; (iv) relaxing requirements for an individual may cause injustice to other candidates; and (v) an appointment obtained through irregularity is subject to being set aside even if the appointee has been continued for some time.
Facts of the case:
An advertisement issued on 9.6.92 prescribed specific qualifications with a deadline of 29.6.92 for submission of applications. The respondent did not possess the required technical qualification on that date, having appeared for a B.Ed. examination whose results were declared only on 6.8.92. He was not called for interview initially, but filed a writ petition obtaining an interim order for interview, was subsequently interviewed, and provisionally appointed subject to the outcome of the petition. The High Court set aside the cutoff date, allowed his confirmation, and the administration discontinued his services, leading to an appeal to the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The advertisements terms were clear and the cutoff date valid. The respondent was not eligible for consideration as he did not meet the qualification requirement on the prescribed date. His continued appointment and confirmation flowed from interim orders and cannot regularise an initial lack of eligibility. The Division Benchs approach was erroneous, as relaxing the requirement in this case would cause injustice to other eligible candidates.
Issues:
Whether eligibility determined as of the cutoff date in the advertisement is enforceable; whether an interim order can validate appointment when initial eligibility is absent; whether relaxing qualification requirements for an individual is permissible without statutory authority.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appointments must conform to the eligibility criteria and cutoff date set out in the advertisement; possession of requisite qualifications on that date is mandatory, and interim orders cannot override this requirement, as relaxing rules for one candidate may prejudice others who complied.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, the writ petition is dismissed, and no order as to costs is made.
(A) The Service Law, read with the constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, requires that appointments to public posts be governed strictly by the criteria prescribed in the advertisement. The advertisement issued on 9.6.92 specified eligibility conditions, including possession of a B.S.T.C. or equivalent qualification, and expressly stipulated that no certificates or marksheets would be accepted after the deadline for receipt of applications. These provisions operate together to ensure that eligibility is determined as on the prescribed cutoff date, and any relaxation in the absence of statutory authority would undermine the fairness of the selection process.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) eligibility for appointment is determined as on the cutoff date specified in the advertisement; (ii) qualifications must be possessed on that date and not merely acquired later; (iii) interim orders cannot override the substantive eligibility criteria; (iv) relaxing requirements for an individual may cause injustice to other candidates; and (v) an appointment obtained through irregularity is subject to being set aside even if the appointee has been continued for some time.
Facts of the case:
An advertisement issued on 9.6.92 prescribed specific qualifications with a deadline of 29.6.92 for submission of applications. The respondent did not possess the required technical qualification on that date, having appeared for a B.Ed. examination whose results were declared only on 6.8.92. He was not called for interview initially, but filed a writ petition obtaining an interim order for interview, was subsequently interviewed, and provisionally appointed subject to the outcome of the petition. The High Court set aside the cutoff date, allowed his confirmation, and the administration discontinued his services, leading to an appeal to the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The advertisements terms were clear and the cutoff date valid. The respondent was not eligible for consideration as he did not meet the qualification requirement on the prescribed date. His continued appointment and confirmation flowed from interim orders and cannot regularise an initial lack of eligibility. The Division Benchs approach was erroneous, as relaxing the requirement in this case would cause injustice to other eligible candidates.
Issues:
Whether eligibility determined as of the cutoff date in the advertisement is enforceable; whether an interim order can validate appointment when initial eligibility is absent; whether relaxing qualification requirements for an individual is permissible without statutory authority.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appointments must conform to the eligibility criteria and cutoff date set out in the advertisement; possession of requisite qualifications on that date is mandatory, and interim orders cannot override this requirement, as relaxing rules for one candidate may prejudice others who complied.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, the writ petition is dismissed, and no order as to costs is made.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard both sides. In the Advertisement No. 1 of 1992 which was issued on 9.6.92 it was stated that the application form must reach the office of the Zila Parishad, Dungarpur latest by 5.00 p.m. on 29.6.92. The prescribed qualifications for the post required, inter alia practical/technical qualifications of B.S.T.C. or its equivalent, recognised by the State Government. The last paragraph of the advertisement stated that no certificates/marks-sheet will be accepted after the receipt of application forms in the office.
3. The respondent did not possess the requisite technical qualification on 29.6.92 which was the last date for submitting application. He had appeared for the B.Ed. Examination but the results were not declared on 29.6.92. The results were declared only on 6.8.92. The interviews for the advertised posts were held from 1st of September, 1992 onwards.
4. The respondent was not called for an interview since on the date of the receipt of his application, he did not possess any technical qualification. On 1.9.92 he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan and obtained an interim order requiring the appellant to call him for an interview. Pursuant to this interim order, he was interviewed and thereafter, on the basis of the directions which the respondent obtained from the High Court, he was included in the list of selected candidates. He was appointed thereafter on a provisional basis subject to the outcome of this writ petition. According to the respondent he has now been confirmed.
5. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge or the High Court by his order dated 17.7.95, holding that the cut-off date for ascertaining the eligibility of the respondent under the said advertisement was the last date prescribed for submission of the application i.e. 29.6.92. On 5.2.96 the services of the respondent were discontinued. The respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which has been allowed. The present appeal is from the decision of the Division Bench.
6. Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning. The respondent s application was not considered and he was not called for an interview. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other person who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others.
7. In the premises, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
*********
Parallel Citations of other Journals ;
State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, 1997(7) Supreme 128 : JT 1997(7) SC 287 : 1997(6) SCC 574
00028