1. Recruitment for Village Development Officers — Challenge to termination of appointment — Dispute over Ex-Servicemen status and essential educational qualifications on the cut-off date. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1088
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Sudhir Singh And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2023(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12441 of 2022)
Decided on : 30-10-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment - Basic qualification is to be adjudged as on last date of submission of application forms, subject to any extension of such date by concerned authority - Candidate/applicant has to comply with all conditions/eligibility criteria as per advertisement before cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by recruiting authority.
Appointment - Basic qualification is to be adjudged as on last date of submission of application forms, subject to any extension of such date by concerned authority - Candidate/applicant has to comply with all conditions/eligibility criteria as per advertisement before cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by recruiting authority.
Subject
Employment Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
Headnote
Service Law - Appointment - Rejection of claims for recruitment on posts of Village Development Officers - Basic question on eligibility has to be determined on the basis of cut-off date/point of time which stands crystallized by the date of advertisement itself, being last date of submission of application forms, unless extended by authority concerned - None of appellants can be said to have been Ex-Servicemen at the time of advertisement in question as they were still in service - There is no concept of serving personnel being deemed Ex-Servicemen - It would not be proper for this Court to hold or interpret otherwise - Even if a certification is given to a person indicating a prospective date till when he would be in employment, circumstances could intercede between date of such certificate and prospective date of retirement/resignation/relieving indicated therein - On this count alone, appellants' claim of right to consideration under Ex-Servicemen category fails - Advertisement clearly specified essential qualification was a C.C.C. Certificate - Appellants despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, having failed to do so, nothing survives on this count - Impugned Judgment upheld. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of Judgment and Order passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ (A) Petition filed by appellants by which their claims for recruitment on posts of Village Development Officers have been rejected.
Findings of Court:
Any payments made to appellants for period they have actually worked as Village Development Officers, shall not be recovered. If any such recoveries have already been effected, same be returned to appellants forthwith.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim eligibility based on appointment date and equivalent qualifications — State contends ineligibility due to lack of Ex-Servicemen status and requisite certificates on application deadline. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Eligibility must be determined by the cut-off date specified in the advertisement; serving personnel cannot be deemed Ex-Servicemen prospectively to avoid violating the doctrine of equality. (Para 14 , 15 , 18 )
4. Basic eligibility and qualifications for recruitment must be adjudged as of the last date of submission of application forms, unless extended by the recruiting authority. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 )
5. Appeal dismissed and impugned judgment upheld; however, payments for actual work performed shall not be recovered. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. When should a candidate's eligibility and basic qualifications be determined for recruitment?
Eligibility must be determined based on the cut-off date, which is typically the last date for submission of application forms, unless the recruiting authority extends this date. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 )
7. Can personnel currently serving in the Armed Forces be treated as Ex-Servicemen for recruitment if they are released before the appointment date?
No, there is no concept of serving personnel being deemed Ex-Servicemen from a prospective date. Eligibility is judged at the time of advertisement, not the date of appointment. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. Why is it legally impermissible to grant eligibility benefits to candidates who acquire qualifications after the application deadline?
Granting such benefits would violate the doctrine of equality, as many eligible candidates might not have applied if they strictly adhered to the statutory rules and advertisement terms. (Para 14 )
9. Does possessing a higher qualification automatically satisfy the requirement for a specific essential certificate mentioned in a recruitment advertisement?
No, if a specific certificate is listed as an essential qualification, the candidate must possess it or prove equivalence; failure to demonstrate such equivalence renders the candidate ineligible. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Civil Misc. Writ (A) Petition No.4817 of 2020 dated 05.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) filed by the appellants by which their claims for recruitment on the posts of Village Development Officers have been rejected.
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
4. The appellants were serving in the Armed Forces in various capacities, at the relevant time, when an advertisement was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) for recruitment to the post of Village Development Officer. The registration for applications commenced on 18.01.2016 and the last date of submission of the application forms was 10.02.2016. The appellants applied in the category of Ex-Servicemen after obtaining No-Objection Certificate(s) (hereinafter referred to as “NOC”) from the employer(s). Initially, their result was withheld for various reasons but ultimately, they were issued appointment letters on 29.05.2019 (appellants no.1 & 2) & on 27.05.2019 (appellant no.3) respectively, on temporary basis. Worthwhile to note is that this was after the appellants were asked to appear before the Commission on 26.12.2018 with necessary documents pertaining to their qualification and more so with regard having equivalence to the Course of Computer Concept (hereinafter referred to as the “C.C.C. Certificate”). However, Show-Cause Notice was issued by the respondent no.3/District Development Officer, Badaun to the appellants no.1 and 2 on 19.02.2020 and to appellant no.3 on 12.02.2020, as to why, their appointment be not held to be a nullity as on the last date of submission of application form, they were employed with the Armed Forces and could not be treated as Ex-Servicemen and further that they did not possess the C.C.C. Certificate issued by the DOEACC1[Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses.], now NIELIT2[National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology.].
5. Subsequently, on 05.05.2020 (appellants no.1 & 2) and 28.04.2020 (appellant no.3) respectively, orders declaring the appellants’ appointments to be null and void were issued for the afore-mentioned reasons, as indicated in the Show-Cause Notice.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on both the grounds, the Show-Cause Notice was erroneous. It was submitted that the conduct of the authorities, while giving them time to produce documents and the same having been accepted, shows that they possessed the basic and relevant qualification for appointment to the concerned posts.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the date on which the appellants can be deemed to be appointed is the date on which the appointment letters were issued and taking that into consideration in the present case, when the appointment letters were actually issued in May, 2019, prior thereto, the appellant no.1 stood released on 31.07.2016, the appellant no.2 stood released on 30.11.2016 and the appellant no.3 also stood released on 29.02.2016, from the Armed Forces. As far as non-possession of the C.C.C. Certificate is concerned, the stand taken was that the appellants having higher qualification than what was required as also already having an equivalent qualification, their case(s) were recommended by the Commission for appointment.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE & ITS FUNCTIONARIES:
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has taken the stand of the appellants being ineligible for appointment as they did not possess the requisite qualification, the reason being that they were not Ex-Servicemen as on the relevant date, when the post was advertised.
9. Further, it was contended that none of the appellants had the C.C.C. Certificate on the date of the advertiseme
