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.

ORDER :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and order dated 2.2.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications no. 19220/18 and 19506/18, the original petitioners have preferred this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The facts arising in both the appeals and Writ Petitions are identical and both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The appellants - original petitioners are direct recruits to the post of Assistant Police Sub-Inspector (hereinafter referred to as “ASI”) in the year 2014. As per the policy of the Government, for the initial years, the appellants were on a fixed pay. Ultimately, respondent no.2 herein i.e. Subordinate Services Selection Board issued an advertisement no.151/2018-19 for the promotion post i.e. Police Sub-Inspector (hereinafter referred to as “PSI”). The said advertisement stipulated that those candidates who have completed 3 years of service as on 15.12.2018 would be eligible to apply for the same. As the appellants did not possess experience of 3 years on the cut off date i.e. 15.12.2018 and in fact was short by 40-45 days, except one of the appellant approached this Court by way of these two petitions and inter-alia prayed as under:-

“B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby be pleased to direct and hold that the petitioners were eligible for the promotional post of Police Sub-Inspector, upon completion of three years of service and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to fill up the forms and further be pleased to direct the respondents to accept the forms and to permit the petitioners to appear in the competitive examination to be held for the post of Police Sub-Inspector in pursuance to the advertisement No.151/2018, in the interest of justice.

C) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct respondent authorities permit the petitioners to fill up the forms and further be pleased to direct the respondents to accept the forms and to permit the petitioners to appear in the competitive examination to be held for the post of Police Sub-Inspector in pursuance to the advertisement No. 151/201, in the interest of justice.”

4. The facts as narrated in Letters Patent Appeal no.429/22 are taken as basis of this judgment and order.

5. It was mainly contended by the appellants original petitioners that syllabus of the post of ASI and PSI are almost identical, except one subject of law. It was also contended that even the physical requirements and/or parameters are also the same. It was contended that in majority cases, ASIs who were appointed in the year 2016 have experience of not less than 2 years upto 9 years of service and therefore, it was contended by the appellants - original petitioners that they may be permitted to submit their forms by directing the respondent authorities to accept the same. It was also contended that cut off date prescribed by the respondent authorities deserves to be modified as there is no requirement of completion of period of 3 years for the purpose of participating in the competitive examination. It was also contended that the appellants - original petitioners are not in any way wanting the process of recruitment to be stalled, however, it was prayed that the cut off date should be 15.2.2019 instead of 15.12.2018. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made on behalf of all the parties as well as considering the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities and relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, was pleased to dismiss the petitions and being aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed.

6. Heard Mr. Maulin Pandya, lear