- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt .
Factual and Procedural Background
An advertisement (Advertisement No. 1 of 1992, issued on 9-6-1992) invited applications for certain posts and required that application forms reach the office of the Zila Parishad, Dungarpur by 5.00 p.m. on 29-6-1992. The prescribed qualifications included practical/technical qualifications of BSTC or its equivalent recognised by the State Government. The advertisement also stated that no certificates/mark-sheets would be accepted after receipt of application forms in the office.
The respondent did not possess the requisite technical qualification on the last date for submitting applications (29-6-1992). Although he had appeared for the B.Ed. examination, the results were declared only on 6-8-1992. Interviews were held from 1-9-1992 onwards.
Because the respondent lacked the technical qualification on the date his application was received, he was not called for an interview. On 1-9-1992, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan and obtained an interim order directing that he be called for an interview. Pursuant to interim directions, he was interviewed, included in the select list, and appointed provisionally subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The respondent asserted that he was subsequently confirmed.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 17-7-1995, holding that the cut-off date for eligibility was 29-6-1992 (the last date for submission of applications). On 5-2-1996, the respondent’s services were discontinued. The respondent appealed to the Division Bench, which allowed the appeal. The present appeal was filed against the Division Bench’s decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the terms of the advertisement, the respondent was eligible to be considered for the post despite not possessing the requisite technical qualification as of the last date for submission of applications (29-6-1992).
- Whether the respondent’s continuation in service (and alleged confirmation) pursuant to interim orders justified not disturbing his appointment despite ineligibility on the cut-off date.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent requested that, since he had been continued in service and had allegedly been confirmed, the Court should not disturb his appointment.
- He sought sympathetic consideration of his case.
Appellants' Position (as reflected in the opinion)
- The appellants maintained that the respondent was not eligible on the prescribed cut-off date and therefore his application was correctly not considered and he was correctly not called for interview.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court focused on the explicit terms of the advertisement, which fixed a clear deadline (29-6-1992) for receipt of applications and stipulated that no certificates/mark-sheets would be accepted after receipt of application forms. On the facts, the respondent lacked the requisite technical qualification on that cut-off date, since his examination results were declared only on 6-8-1992. Accordingly, he was not eligible for consideration under the advertised conditions.
The Court rejected the respondent’s plea for sympathetic treatment based on his continuation in service and alleged confirmation. It emphasized that the appellants had taken the correct stand from the outset by not considering his application and not calling him for interview. The respondent’s subsequent interview, selection, and appointment occurred only because he had obtained interim orders, and he was aware that his appointment was provisional and subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
The Court further reasoned that a fixed cut-off date for meeting qualification requirements cannot be ignored in an individual case. Relaxing the requirement for one person could cause injustice to others who might have applied if they had known that the date for acquiring qualifications was flexible, or who refrained from applying because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; IMPUGNED ORDER SET ASIDE; WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
The Court held that the respondent was not eligible for consideration because he did not possess the requisite technical qualification as on the cut-off date specified in the advertisement. Consequently, it allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench’s order, and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition. There was no order as to costs.
The direct effect is that the respondent’s claim to appointment based on the interim-order-driven selection could not be sustained in the face of ineligibility under the advertisement’s terms. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond applying the cut-off date requirement to the respondent’s case.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard both sides. In the Advertisement No. 1 of 1992 which was issued on 9-6-1992 it was stated that the application form must reach the office of the Zila Parishad, Dungarpur latest by 5.00 p.m on 29-6-1992. The prescribed qualifications for the post required, inter alia, practical/technical qualifications of BSTC or its equivalent, recognised by the State Government. The last paragraph of the advertisement stated that no certificates/marks-sheets will be accepted after the receipt of application forms in the office.
3. The respondent did not possess the requisite technical qualification on 29-6-1992 which was the last date for submitting application. He had appeared for the B.Ed examination but the results were not declared on 29-6-1992. The results were declared only on 6-8-1992. The interviews for the advertised posts were held from 1-9-1992 onwards.
4. The respondent was not called for an interview since on the date of the receipt of his application, he did not possess any technical qualification. On 1-9-1992 he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan and obtained an interim order requiring the appellant to call him for an interview. Pursuant to this interim order, he was interviewed and thereafter, on the basis of the directions which the respondent obtained from the High Court, he was included in the list of selected candidates. He was appointed thereafter on a provisional basis subject to the outcome of this writ petition. According to the respondent he has now been confirmed.
5. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 17-7-1995, holding that the cut-off date for ascertaining the eligibility of the respondent under the said advertisement was the last date prescribed for submission of the application i.e 29-6-1992. On 5-2-1996 the services of the respondent were discontinued. The respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which has been allowed. The present appeal is from the decision of the Division Bench.
6. Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning. The respondent's application was not considered and he was not called for an interview. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others.
7. In the premises, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert