Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Bharati Dangre, Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.
Rajat Uday Naroji - Petitioner
Versus
State of Goa, Through the Home Secretary and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.470 of 2024
Decided On : 02-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Recruitment Rules, 1999 - Non-selection of candidate for Police Sub-Inspector post - Petitioner claimed eligibility based on provisional passing certificate received after cut-off date - Court held that eligibility must be determined as of the cut-off date, and the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications at that time - The selection committee acted within its rights in excluding the petitioner from the selection list. (Paras 18, 24, 28)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review in executive actions - The court emphasized that executive actions should not be interfered with unless they are irrational, unreasonable, or unconstitutional. (Paras 12.1, 12.6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector but was not selected due to the non-production of a passing certificate by the cut-off date of 30.04.2021, despite having completed his degree.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria as he lacked the necessary qualifications on the cut-off date, and the selection committee's decision was justified.
Issues: The main issues were whether the conditions in the advertisement violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and whether the petitioner was eligible for selection based on the timing of his qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that eligibility must be determined as of the cut-off date, and the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualifications at that time, reaffirming the principle that selection committees must adhere to stipulated conditions.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Nivedita P.Mehta, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant petition has been filed against the non-selection of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector vide selection list dated 02.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Selection List'). The petitioner has prayed for the quashing and setting aside the selection of respondent no.4 and respondent no. 5 vide the Impugned Selection List as well as for directions to respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 to appoint him as Police Sub-Inspector in the Goa Police Department.
3. Briefly, the facts of the instant petition are that respondent no.3 published an advertisement dated 28.03.2021 inviting applications for the post of Police Sub-Inspector to fill up 145 vacancies, which were segregated into separate sets of vacancies for Male and Female applicants, 122 and 23 in number, respectively.Out of the 145 vacancies, 58 were to be filled up from the Unreserved Category, 2 from the Scheduled Caste (SC), 17 from the Scheduled Tribe (ST), 5 from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), 40 from Other Backward Classes (OBC), 5 for ex-servicemen and 8 vacancies were reserved for sports persons out of the 122 vacancies reserved for the male candidates. The advertisement specified that the requisite conditions to be eligible for the post were that the applicant should possess the minimum prescribed qualifications as on 30.04.2021, as well as a 15-year residence certificate.
4. On 10.04.2021, the petitioner was informed by his college byway of an e-mail that he had passed the VIth semester and had completed the B.E. Mechanical Engineering Course and was entitled to the Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical Engineering) Degree. Subsequently, on 12.04.2021, the petitioner applied to the Vice Chancellor of the Goa University for provisional as well as final marksheet and passing certificate of his graduation in B.E. Mechanical Engineering.
5. On 19.04.2021, the petitioner applied to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. On 16.06.2021, the Provisional Passing Certificate and the marksheet for the final year of the B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) course were declared. According to the petitioner, the marksheet as well as the Passing Certificate were supplied by Goa University belatedly, for reasons not attributable to him, although the petitioner had appeared in the final examination on 17.03.2021.
6. On 09.08.2021, a Call Letter was addressed to the petitioner calling upon him to participate in the selection test and give his physical measurements. On 18.08.2021, another Call Letter was addressed to the petitioner informing him of the physical efficiency test. The petitioner was present for both tests on the dates stipulated by the call letters.
7. The petitioner was notified by a notice dated 27.11.2021 of a written examination that was to be conducted on 02.12.2021. The petitioner duly appeared for the written examination on 02.12.2021 and scored 89 marks against his allotted seat no.20748.
8. Eventually, by the call letter dated 24.06.2022, the petitioner was called for verification of original documents on 04.07.2022 at Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa. The petitioner appeared with the certificates and documents specified in the call letter. However, the essential qualification as per the advertisement was that on the cut-off date, i.e. 30.04.2021 the candidates were to produce a passing certificate of the educational qualification prescribed. The petitioner contended that on 10.04.2021 he received an email which satisfied the requisite qualifications as prescribed.
9. On 02.12.2022, the Impugned Selection List was released by respondent no. 3, and the petitioner's name was absent from the selection list. Aggrieved by his non-selection, the petitioner addressed a representation dated 07.12.2022 to respondent no. 2 and sent a copy to respondent no. 3 sta
Eligibility for public employment must be determined as of the cut-off date specified in the recruitment advertisement, and late issuance of qualifications does not confer eligibility.
The eligibility of any candidate is to be reckoned from the date of the selection and appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment criteria after participating in the selection process, as estoppel applies. Eligibility is determined by the employer based on stated qualifications within the....
A candidate's eligibility should not be disregarded based on the absence of an original degree certificate if valid proof of graduation, such as a Grade Card, is submitted before the application dead....
The judgment emphasized the importance of fixed cut-off dates for determining eligibility and the need for candidates to possess the requisite qualification on or before the last date for submitting ....
Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered mid-process, as it undermines fairness and transparency, violating established legal principles.
Public appointments are void if they lack adherence to stipulated eligibility criteria as of the cut-off date, regardless of length of service or administrative inaction.
Eligibility criteria for recruitment must be consistent and cannot be altered after the process has commenced, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Advertisement specifies securing of qualifying marks by the candidates, but it does not prescribe what would be the qualifying marks in each of the segments for selection of the candidate for the pos....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
