IMPORTANT POINT
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 judged with reference to that date and that date alone and a person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all.

Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW-Appointment-Where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as last date for filing applications-Eligibility of candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone-A person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all-1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 116 : Overruled.
       Held : The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidtaes shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. (Para 6)
       (ii) SERVICE LAW-Appointment to post of Junior Engineer in service of Jammu & Kashmir-Applications invited-Last date for submitting applications specifically stated-A pass in B.E. examination was minimum academic qualification for applying-33 respondents had not passed qualifying examination till date of application-They were interviewed as they were qualified by date of interview-Selection made-Certain candidates fully qualified placed in select list below respondents-Select List challenged-Majority Judges of a Bench of Supreme Court held that there was no illegality in allowing them to appear for interview-Unanimous opinion that inter se seniority not to be disturbed-Review petition-Majority opinion unsustainable in law-Eligibility of candidates shall have to be judged with reference to date of application alone-However, relief granted not to be disturbed. (Constitution of India-Art. 142).
       Held : he reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherence of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. (Para 6)
       Further held : All the three learned Judges are unanimous in holding that the seniority given to the 33 candidates (by the Selecting Authority) should not be disturbed. This Bench, sitting in review jurisdiction, should not interfere with the said unanimous opinion of three learned Judges, more so because the matter lies within the realm of discretion and is a case of moulding the relief in exercise of this Court s power under Article 142 of the Constitution. (d) The 33 respondents were appointed as far back as in 1984 and have earned two promotions namely to the post of Assistant Engineer and thereafter to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The review petitioners and other similarly placed persons have also been promoted once i.e., to the post of Assistant Engineer. Thirteen years have passed by since their initial appointment. Upturning the inter se seniority at this distance of time would not be just and equitable. (Para 9)

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court has established that for the purpose of determining a candidate's eligibility, the relevant qualifications must be possessed by the candidate on the last date prescribed for submitting the application. Any documents or qualifications obtained or "rectified" after this deadline, such as a later countersignature or certification, generally cannot be considered to retroactively establish eligibility. This principle emphasizes that the candidate's status at the time of application submission is the decisive factor, and subsequent amendments or recognitions cannot alter the eligibility criteria that were in effect on that specific date (!) .

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-These two review applications are filed by the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 5407-5408 of 1992 decided on February 18, 1993 (reported in 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 611).

2. On January 9, 1982 an advertisement was published inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer in the service of the Jummu and Kashmir State. The last date for submitting applications was specifically stated as July 15, 1982. A pass in B.E. (Civil) examination was the minimum academic/technical qualification required for applying for the said post. A number of persons applied pursuant to the advertisement. Out of them, 33 persons (referred to hereinafter as the Respondents) had not passed the B.E. (Civil) Examination on or before July 15, 1982. They had appeared for the said examination earlier to the said date but the results were published only on August 21, 1982. Interviews were held on various dates commencing on August 24, 1982. Though these 33 persons (respondents) were not qualified as on the specified date, they were yet interviewed pursuant to certain instructions given by the Government. They were selected alongwith some other candidates.

3. Certain candidates who were fully qualified to apply for the said post according to the aforesaid advertisement and who were selected but placed in the Select List below the respondents, filed a writ petition in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court contending that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview because they had not acquired the requisite academic/technical qualification by the prescribed date, viz., July 15, 1982. The writ petition was dismissed on 27.5.83. No Letters Patent Appeal having been filed against the said order, it became final. (It is, however, not known how many persons have joined as petitioners in the said writ petition - W.P. No. 250 of 1983.

4. Writ petition 483 of 1983, from which the present proceedings arise, was filed by four candidates, wh are the review petitioners herein, in Jammu and Kashmir High Court, questioning the selection of the said 33 respondents on the very same ground as was urged in the Writ Petition No. 250 of 1983. While this writ petition was pending appointment orders were issued as per the Select List. (The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 483 of 1983 were placed in the Select List below the 33 respondents). Another batch of selected candidates was appointed on 5th September, 1984. Thereafter on 20th December, 1984, Writ Petition No. 483 of 1983 came up for final hearing and was dismissed following the order dated 27.5.83 dismissing Writ Petition No. 250 of 1983. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was allowed by a Division Bench on 13th December, 1991. The Division Bench held that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear in the interview for the reason that they had not acquired the requisite academic/technical qualification by the prescribed date. The Division Bench, however, thought it just and proper to direct that while the appointment of the said 33 respondents be not set aside, they should be treated as juniors to all those selected persons who were fully qualified by the prescribed date. In other words, the candidates who were not qualified by the prescribed date (15th July, 1982) were treated as juniors en bloc to the candidates who were fully qualified by the prescribed date and were selected. It may be mentioned that all the 33 respondents were impleaded as respondents both in Writ Petition No. 483 of 1983 as well as in the Letters Patent Appeal.

5. The 33 respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 5407 of 1992 in this Court, while the State of Jammu and Kashmir filed Civil Appeal No. 5408 of 1982 questioning the decision of the Division Bench aforesaid. The appeals came up of for hearing before a Bench comprising Dr. T.K. Thommen, V. Ramaswami and R.M. Sahai, JJ. There was a difference of opinion on one question though all the three

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 439

Cases Referred (2)