Eligibility for public employment must be satisfied by the prescribed cut-off date. Re-evaluation results do not relate back to the original result date, and failure to meet requirements by the cut-off date renders the candidate ineligible, justifying appointment cancellation without standard termination procedures.

Order :

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts which need to be noticed are that the appellant had applied for the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) and the educational qualifications were required to be examined on the date of written examination. The date of written examination was 25.09.2022 and the requisite qualification was of passing the qualifying examination of PTI.

3. Admittedly, the appellant appeared in the PTI examination and the result was declared on 19.09.2022 and she was declared fail. She applied for re-evaluation and the re-evaluation result was declared on 23.11.2022 and she was declared pass. The appointing authorities after taking into consideration her re- evaluation result, appointed her on the post of PTI. However, vide order dated 15.12.2023, on re-examining the record, they found that she was ineligible on the date of written examination i.e., 25.09.2022, as her re-evaluation result was declared after the cut-off date on 23.11.2022. Accordingly, her appointment orders were canceled. The appellant preferred the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Jenany J.R. Vs. S. Rajeevan & Ors. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 798, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the result of re-evaluation would not relate back to the date of the original result by stating as under:

“15. Vide the impugned order passed by Division Bench, it was unduly impressed by the fact that the appellant herein was appointed only on 23.10.2003 (the date when she actually joined service) and before that date respondent No. 1 had already acquired basic requisite qualification for being appointed as H.S.A (Hindi). According to the Division Bench, 1.7.2003 would only signify with regard to vacancy of the post of H.S.A but relevant date would be the date when the appellant had actually joined. This appears to be misconception of the Division Bench of the High Court. Note (2) is clear, unambiguous and leaves no amount of doubt that relevant date would be when the vacancy occurs. Division Bench of the High Court has completely misread the said Note (2).

16. In our considered opinion, giving a true and literal meaning to Note (2), the relevant date would be the date when the vacancy had arisen i.e.,1.7.2003 and not the date when the appellant actually joined the service.

17. We may profitably quote a passage from Craies on Statute Law:“

‘...It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of he statute to be construed '... that in each case you must look to the subject-matter, consider the importance of the provision and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act, and upon a review of the case in that aspect decide whether the enactment is what is called imperative or only directory.”

18. At this point of time we may further usefully quote the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes “It is sometimes more important to emphasize the obvious than to elucidate the obscure.”

19.To reiterate, we may once again emphasise that after careful scanning of Note(2), the obvious is the date when the vacancy occurs and not subsequent events that might have taken place after the date vacancy had occurred.

20. In fact, this aspect of the matter was duly considered by District Education Officer as also by State Government, who held against respondent No.1. The Lea