High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dr. Shiv Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29151 of 2003  RD-AH 199 (11 July 2003)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 29151 OF 2003
Dr.Shiv Kumar & ors. -------- Petitioner
State of U.P.& ors. ------- Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.
(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)
This writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to respondents to accept their Application Forms and not to reject their candidature that they do not fulfil the eligibility as per the Advertisement No.1/2003-2004.
Shri Manu Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners lack the eligibility for the reasons which have been beyond their control. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible and this Court should issue the direction to consider their candidature.
Learned Standing Counsel has opposed this submission vehemently contending that prescribing the eligibility for a particular post is a legislative question and the Court does not have power to issue direction for contravention of the said policy, and thus, the Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners.
In Y.V. Rangaiah & ors. Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & ors., AIR 1983 SC 852; A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education & Anr., AIR 1983 SC 1143; P. Gyaneshwar Rao & ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors., AIR 1988 SC 2068; and P. Mahendran & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & ors., AIR 1990 SC 405, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that candidates have to be assessed for selection as per the eligibility criteria existing on the date of advertisement of vacancies for the reason that selection process starts with advertisement and all those persons who apply in response to the same, would be eligible to be considered.
All the judgments, referred to above, have been given by the two Hon'ble Judges' Bench except P. Mahendran (supra), which was given by the Bench of three Hon'ble Judges.
The Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India & ors., (1993) 2 SCC 429, without taking note of P. Mahendran (supra), held as under:-
"It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date."
In U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications by the Commission though that was a case where result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of the applications, a candidate, whose result has not been declared upto the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible.
In State of M.P. & ors Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav & ors., (1994) 6 SCC 151, the Apex Court examined a case where during process of selection, the Rules were amended but subsequently the Commission/ State abandoned the selection process and advertised vacancies afresh to be filled up in accordance with the amendment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the action of the State on the ground that the persons, who had applied earlier, had not acquired any vested right, therefore, the State's action was justified.
In Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules."
In State of Rajasthan Vs. R. Dayal & ors., (1997) 10 SCC 419, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the case for promotion, held that the eligibility for promotion must be as in the year when the vacancies arose, but that was not a case of direct recruitment.
In Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chandra Shekhar & ors., (1997) 4 SCC 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be adjudged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established proposition of law.
In Dr. Ramulu & Anr. Vs. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao & ors., AIR 1997 SC 1803, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments and held that if the Rules have been amended, person has a right to be considered as per the amended Rules unless his existing rights prior to the amendment have specifically been saved and for the reason that he cannot claim to have acquired any vested right for being considered in accordance with the Rules existing prior to the amendment.
In Utkal University etc. Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & ors., AIR 1999 SC 943; and Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig, AIR 1999 SC 2093, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated that the eligibility is to be assessed as per the Rules existing on the last date of submission of the applications.
In view of the above, as it is settled legal proposition that the candidate must possess requisite qualification/eligibility on the last date of submission of the Application Form, we see no ground to interfere.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.