Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 1591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR, JJ.
Union of India & Others - Petitioner
Versus
Tej Ram - Respondent
CWP No. 7097 of 2014
Decide on : 12-12-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sharma, ASGI.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan, Advocate
The date of passing an examination is the date when the exam is taken, not when the result is announced, and eligibility for promotion is based on the acquisition of relevant educational qualification before a specified date.
Headnote:
Promotion - Military Engineering Services - Eligibility Criteria
Fact of the Case:
The respondent claimed promotion as JE (Electrical/Mechanical) against the vacancies of 2001-2002, based on the Recruitment Rules issued in 1983. The petitioner considered the claim untenable due to the respondent's purported lack of relevant educational qualification before 1.1.2001.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had acquired the relevant educational qualification before 1.1.2001, making him eligible for promotion. The court also cited a judgment to support the interpretation that the date of passing an examination is the date when the exam is taken, not when the result is announced.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the respondent for promotion based on the acquisition of the relevant educational qualification before 1.1.2001.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the date of passing an examination is the date when the exam is taken, not when the result is announced, and that the respondent had fulfilled the educational criteria before 1.1.2001.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was maintained and affirmed.
Key Points: - The court held that the date of passing the examination is the date for eligibility, not the date of result declaration. (!) (!) - The respondent had acquired the relevant diploma in December 2000, before 1.1.2001, making him eligible for promotion for vacancies in 2001-2002. [18000297640001] (!) - The CA Tribunal’s order was maintained, dismissing the petition. (!) - Reference to Karnataka v. Chandrashekhar supporting the "date of examination" principle. [18000297640002] - Annexure P-4 evidence (diploma showing qualification completed December 2000) supports eligibility before cutoff. [18000297640001]
What is the correct date to determine eligibility for promotion based on educational qualifications: the date of passing the examination or the date of declaration of the result?
What is the legal consequence of acquiring the relevant educational qualification before a cutoff date (1.1.2001) for promotion to JE (Electrical/Mechanical) in Military Engineering Services?
What is the effect of a tribunal or court finding on eligibility when the examination result is declared after the cutoff date but the qualification was completed before it?
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
1. The respondent herein claimed promotion as JE (Electrical/Mechanical) against the vacancies of 2001-2002, as per Recruitment Rules, issued vide notification No. S.R.O 302 of 17.11.1983, nomenclatured as Military Engineering Services (Superintendents (Electrical Mechanical) Grade I and Grade II) Recruitment Rules , 1983.
2. The deterrent which beset the petitioner herein to not consider the claim of the respondent herein for being promoted to the post of J.E (Electrical/ Mechanical) was the purported factum of the respondent herein having not acquired the germane eligibility criteria, inasmuch, as, his having not at the apposite stage acquired the relevant diploma on or before 1st Jan, 2001 as was enjoined to be possessed by him. On the anvil of the respondent herein having not acquired the germane eligibility criteria on or before 1.1.2001, hence, the petitioner herein considered the claim of the respondent herein, for promotion to the post of JE (Electrical/Mechanical), to be untenable. The substratum of the projection by the petitioner herein of the respondent herein having not acquired the germane educational qualification, inasmuch, as, his having not passed his diploma in December, 2000 is anchored upon the factum of the result of the examination in which the respondent herein had participated having come to be declared after the cut off date inasmuch as on 6.2.2001. A perusal of Annexure P-4 which is the diploma awarded in favour of the respondent herein proclaiming the fact of his having completed the part time Diploma in Electrical Engineering magnifies the fact of the respondent herein having acquired the germane, relevant educational qualification in December, 2000. Consequently, when Annexure P-4 makes an amplifying disclosure of the respondent herein having successfully passed the examination in which he participated in December, 2000. Therefore, his having fulfilled the germane educational criteria before 1.1.2001, hence was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of JE (Electrical/Mechanical) for the vacancies which occurred for the year 2001-2002. Even though, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the reckonable, computable date for gauging the time/period of acquisition of the germane educational qualification by the respondent herein is comprised in the date of declaration of the result of the examination in which he participated. However the said contention has no force in face of a judgment reported in 2004 (6) SLR 803: 2005 (1) S.C.T 289, titled as State of Karnataka vs. T. Chandrashekhar, the relevant para of which is extracted hereinafter and which upsurges an inference that the relevant date/time for construing whether the aspirant successfully cleared/passed the departmental examination is the date on which he takes the examination and not the date when the result of the examination is announced.
?The dictum that a Govt. Servant passes the departmental examination on the date when he takes up the exam and not on the date when the result of the examination is announced stems from the fact that the person's knowledge over a particular subject is tested on the date of the examination and not on the date of the announcement of the result. It would be a travesty to state otherwise and even where the results are announced after a long period of time, for one reason or the other, the date of passing of the examination is always construed and mentioned in the result sheet as the date of examination. We answer the issue accordingly.?
3. Consequently, even when the result of the examination in which the respondent herein had participated was declared on 6.2.2001, hence, subsequent to 1.1.2001, the factum of declaration of result would not either impinge upon or detract from the efficacy of Annexure P-4, which declares the respondent herein to have successfully passed his diploma in December, 2000, hence, prior to 1.1.2001, rendering him, as such, eligible to be co
