Employment law principles dictate that once engagement is confirmed and no fraud exists, the original recruitment process must honor eligibility extensions introduced via corrigendum.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S DIXIT, J

1. This Intra-Court Appeal of the State and its officials seeks to call in question the learned Single Judge’s order dated 04.03.2025, whereby Respondent-employee’s W.P.(C) No.9688 of 2016 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded to her:

“In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-7 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Sikshya Sahayak with all consequential service and financial benefits.”

2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants-State vehemently argues that initially the recruitment advertisement was issued on 11.09.2014; subsequently, a corrigendum came to be issued on 09.02.2016 fixing 28.02.2016 to be the last date for filing the applications. The object of issuing the corrigendum was to benefit the eligible and qualified candidates under the original advertisement who could not stake their claim for appointment because of age bar. The Respondent-employee admittedly having not acquired the prescribed B.A., B.Ed. qualification within the last date prescribed under the original advertisement, she has been disengaged vide order dated 03.05.2016. He also tells that by that time although the Respondent-employee had already gained entry to the employment, say a month or so, the fact was ascertained on minute cross-checking of the documents submitted by her. This aspect having not duly been adverted to by the learned Single Judge, impugned order suffers from an infirmity warranting interference of this Court.

3. Learned Advocate representing the Respondent-employee, per contra, opposes the Appeal contending that once the date for filing application is extended, the candidates who obtained the prescribed educational qualification, even subsequent to the date mentioned in the original advertisement itself, would become eligible to apply and therefore, the impugned order is inexplicable. She presses into service a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.102 of 2016 between Biswaranjan Biswal vs. State of Odisha decided on 29.11.2022, in support of his submission. He also presses into service a Single Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harman Preet Singh Wadhwa vs. State of Punjab , MANU/PH/0322/2016

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the question raised is no longer res integra. The same has been stoutly answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Biswajranjan supra, which related to the very same recruitment process and the very same corrigendum. At Paragraph-16, the Bench has observed as under:

“16. Even the plea that the corrigendum relates back to the original advertisement overlooks the fact that as far as the present Appellants are concerned, they became qualified to apply only because of the relaxation of the upper age limit pursuant to the orders of this Court as explained hereinbefore. In other words, it is only by virtue of corrigendum that the Appellants came to apply for the post. If the corrigendum were to relate back to the original date, they would not even be qualified to apply. Therefore, as far as the three Appellants are concerned, it cannot be said that the relevant date for determining whether the Appellants possess the requisite qualification has to be the original date of 30^th September 2014. It has to be the revised date in terms of the corrigendum.”

At Para-12 of the decision, the corrigendum is specifically referred to.

5. Learned counsel representing the Respondent-employee is right in pressing into service the Punjab and Haryana High