High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Ramvir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-10867-2006  RD-P&H 4241 (17 July 2006)
C.W.P. No. 10867 of 2006
Date of Decision: 20.7.2006
State of Haryana and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT: Mr. Parvesh Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)
The prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner eligible to participate in the process of selection for the post of Male Constable.
The respondents have issued an advertisement dated 2.5.2006 (P-1) for filling up 3700 posts of Male Constables. The last date for submission of application was 24.5.2006. According to the advertisement a candidate was required to be 10+2 pass. The petitioner had appeared in 10+2 examination but his result was declared on 6.7.2006 when he had passed the examination. The petitioner had applied by mentioning that his result for 10+2 examination was awaited. He was called for interview on 7.7.2006.
C.W.P. No. 10867 of 2006
When he produced the marks sheet duly certified by the Principal, Mayawati Senior Secondary School, Nodel, Faridabad, he was declared in-eligible, which action is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.
Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that law on the issue is well settled. The cut-off date for determining eligibility of a candidate is the last date of receipt of application, which in the present case was 24.5.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have the qualification of 10+2 pass on 24.5.2006 as he acquired the aforementioned qualification on 6.7.2006. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262, wherein it has been held as under:- " 12. All the appeals and the writ petitions have been taken up for hearing analogously. The only question arising for decision in this case is by reference to which date the eligibility of the several candidates is to be judged and the consequences flowing from the failure to satisfy the eligibility test in the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18, A.P. Public Service commission v. B.
Sarat Chandra, (1990) 2 SCC 669, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential C.W.P. No. 10867 of 2006
School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429 and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723, the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice." (Emphasis added)
The view taken in Bhupinderpal Singh's case (supra) has also reiterated the view taken in the earlier judgments of Hon'ble the C.W.P. No. 10867 of 2006
Supreme Court in M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429 and Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168.
In view of the well settled position in law, no interference of this Court would be warranted. The writ petition is wholly without merit.
July 20, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.