Karnataka High Court
Dr Vijaylaxmi vs The Registrar on 5 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20
WP No. 204142 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.204142 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR.VIJAYLAXMI D/O ISHWAR MUNDINAMANI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: SUBJECT MATTER SPECIALIST,
AT UAS DHARWAD, R/O BANASHREE LAYOUT,
21ST CROSS, NEAR PEPSI FACTORY,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580005.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PUNITH MARKAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA VETERINARY, ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
NANDI NAGAR, BIDAR-585401.
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS
Digitally signed by RECRUITMENT BOARD (ASRB),
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
Location: HIGH RESEARCH AND EDUCATION,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHAYAN BHAVAN, PUSA, NEW DELHI-110012.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. NILUFARHANAZ, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED INELIGIBLE LIST BEG. NO. RGR/RECT/RGEN/5/ 2024-
RCRT-KVAFSU DATED 17.12.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AND NOTIFICATION BEG. NO.KVAFSU-
GEN/RECRUITMENT/KOYLA/2025-26-RGR DATED 10.12.2025
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, PERTAINING TO
THE SL.NO.3 PETITIONER'S SUBJECT AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20
WP No. 204142 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Punith Markhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Nilufarhanaz, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned ineligibility list dated 17.12.2025 bearing No.RGR/RECT/RGEN/5/2024-RCRT-KVAFSU vide Annexure-H and Notification dated 10.12.2025 bearing No.KVAFSU-GEN/RECRUITMENT/KOYLA/2025-26-RGR vide Annexure-F and for issuance of writ of mandamus by way of direction to respondent No.1 to include the petitioner in the eligibility list by considering the petitioner's request letters/representations dated 09.12.2025 and 21.12.2025 at Annexures-E and K. -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner - Dr. Vijaylaxmi completed her Master's Degree in M.V.Sc., on 10.06.2023. Despite her completing the Master's Degree in Veterinary Science on 10.06.2023, the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (for short, 'ASRB') has not invited the application for conducting National Eligibility Test (NET) since from 14.03.2023 to 24.02.2025. The respondent No.2/Controller of Examinations, issued a Notification dated 24.02.2025 for combined NET, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) (T-6) and Senior Technical Officer (STO) Examination 2025. The examination was scheduled from 02.09.2025 to 04.09.2025 and it was postponed due to heavy rains and rescheduled to 11.11.2025 to 13.11.2025 with a public notice dated 25.09.2025. The examination for the petitioner's subject - Livestock Production Management was conducted on 12.11.2025. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 issued recruitment Notification dated 12.11.2025 for recruitment -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR of teaching staff on various subjects from eligible candidates. Petitioner gave a request letter/representation dated 09.12.2025 through Email to respondent No.1 for consideration of her candidature due to non-conduct of ASRB NET Examination since from 14.03.2023 to 24.02.2025 due to irregularities within ASRB.
4. Respondent No.1 issued a Notification dated 10.12.2025 announcing the schedule of events for verification of documents on 23.12.2025 for the petitioner's subject, for publication of the provisional list of eligible candidates for interview and final selection on or before 06.01.2026.
5. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Livestock Production and Management. On 17.12.2025, respondent No.1 announced the list of ineligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor, wherein the name of petitioner was found at Sl.Nos.7 and 8, mentioning the reason for ineligibility as -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner does not possess NET or Ph.D., in the subject of Animal Nutrition.
6. Respondent No.2 conducted NET examination on 12.11.2025. The results were declared on 19.12.2025. The petitioner contends she qualified in the NET examination in the discipline of Livestock Production and Management.
7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned ineligible list dated 17.12.2025 issued by respondent No.1 is highly illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and unconstitutional. Therefore, having no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner approached this Court for redressal of her grievance. It is further contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the recruitment Notification dated 12.11.2025, the educational qualifications and guidelines fixed for the post of Assistant Professor are mentioned at Sl.No.4 wherein it is mentioned as "NET is -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR exempted for such Master's Degree programmes where NET is not conducted by the ICAR/UGC/CSIR/SLET/SET in the concerned/Allied subjects, as notified by the University". It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has completed her Master's Degree on 10.06.2023. After completion of Master's Degree by the petitioner, the ASRB has not invited the application for conducting NET since from 14.03.2023 to 24.02.2025. Therefore, the impugned ineligible list is liable to be set aside as being illegal and arbitrary.
8. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that she has qualified the NET conducted on 12.11.2025 and the certificate of qualifying NET was issued to the petitioner on 19.12.2025. However, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Livestock Production and Management on 12.12.2025 and that due to non-announcement of the result by respondent No.2, the petitioner requested respondent No.1-authority to consider her candidature for the post of Assistant -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR Professor and the petitioner had assured submitting the NET qualifying certificate on or before the date of document verification in the said recruitment process. It is also his contention that petitioner qualified the NET on 12.11.2025, but due to non-availability of the said qualifying certificate at the time of filing application, petitioner was not able to produce the same. Petitioner was having the said certificate before completion of document verification process which was scheduled on 23.12.2025 and therefore, he contends that the impugned ineligible list is without authority and is in violation of principles of natural justice.
9. It is further contented that the recruitment agency should ignore procedural lapses in production of documents and it has to consider the candidate's date of passing of the exam and not the date of issuance of degrees, in view of the petitioner having qualified the NET on 12.11.2025, the certificate having been issued on 19.12.2025. Due to non-availability of the said certificate, -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR at the time of filing the application, the petitioner cannot be found to be ineligible and the impugned ineligible list issued by respondent No.1 is illegal, arbitrary and the same deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is required to be permitted to participate further in the recruitment process. It is also contented that as on date of the recruitment or scrutiny, since the petitioner qualified in NET, the same has to be taken into consideration for her appointment to the relevant post. Having not done so and having issued the impugned ineligible list, the same requires to be quashed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Clause-4 of the recruitment Notification in respect of Assistant Professor's post where qualification and guidelines are mentioned. He contends that in view of the exemption provided in the Clause-4 of the Notification, the petitioner would squarely come under this and would be exempted from the NET as notified in the recruitment Notification.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. Per contra, Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Nilufarhanaz, learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently contended that the ineligible list issued by respondent No.1 does not stem out from any illegality or perversity or arbitrariness. The same is in accordance with the recruitment Notification and the rules and guidelines formulated in the said Notification. It is also in consonance with the prescribed qualification as stated in the recruitment Notification and the petitioner having not procured and secured the NET certification on or before 13.12.2025, she would not be eligible for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor as per the Notification dated 12.11.2025. It is also vehemently contented by learned Senior counsel that Clause-4 of the qualification and guidelines prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor would not be applicable to the petitioner in the case on hand. So also, he contends that there are certain general instructions and guidelines to all the candidates for
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR filling up the application for the recruitment to the said posts and Clause-47 of the said recruitment Notification under the general instructions to candidates, it is specifically stated as "47. The eligibility of the candidate will be determined as per the last date of submission of application i.e., 13.12.2025".
12. Learned Senior counsel has filed a memo along with few documents namely, the recruitment Notification, application of the petitioner, request letter of the petitioner which was uploaded instead of the NET certificate. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 brings to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Livestock Production and Management subject which is not in dispute and while filing the application and stating the personal information under the caption "Do you have NET certificate?" the answer is stated as "Yes", which may not be correct as it is a false statement made by the petitioner for the reason that as on date of filing the application, the petitioner did
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR not possess or secure the NET certificate even according to the petitioner herself. It is also submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioner herself made a request by filing a representation/letter for consideration of her candidature due to non-conduct of ASRB NET examination. He brings to the notice of this Court the letter which is annexed along with the memo and which was also uploaded along with the application wherein at paragraph- 2, the petitioner herself has stated as under:
"The ASRB NET examination has not been conducted regularly for the past three years. The last NET examination was held from 26th to 30th April 2023. After that, in 2025, the examination was announced to be conducted from 2nd to 4th September 2025; however, it was subsequently postponed to 11th to 13th November 2025 due to irregularities within ASRB. As a result of these repeated postponements, candidates like me have been unable to obtain the required NET qualification certificate in time for the present recruitment cycle.
Due to circumstances entirely beyond my control, I am currently unable to attach the NET certificate with my application. ..."
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. Learned Senior counsel submits that while submitting such representation, the petitioner has sought for consideration to accept the application for the post of Assistant Professor in Livestock Production and Management and to permit her to submit NET certificate at the time of document verification. Therefore, he contends that admittedly, even according to the petitioner, as on the date of filing of the application for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in Livestock Production and Management subject, the petitioner did not have NET certificate with her and neither did she upload the same which is evident from the letter of request made for consideration of her candidature for production of NET certificate at the time of document verification. On these grounds, learned Senior counsel contends that admittedly, even according to the petitioner and on the basis of facts narrated by the petitioner and the records placed before the Court as well as the application and the letter filed along with the application for filling the post of Assistant
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR Professor, the petitioner did not have the required eligibility criteria of NET certification. When such being the circumstance and the eligibility of the candidature being the requirement of NET certificate, non-production of the same will certainly disentitle the petitioner from participation in the recruitment process. Accordingly, the petitioner has been rightly visited with the impugned ineligible list, thereby, she becomes ineligible to participate in the recruitment process which does not call for interference and neither is it illegal or arbitrary or contrary to the recruitment Notification and the rules and guidelines laid down therein.
14. Learned Senior counsel also files along with a memo the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka pertaining to the subject of revision of UGC/ICAR pay scales of Teachers, Librarians and Equivalent Cadres working in Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Science University, Bidar, with effect from 01.01.2006 and the Government Order dated 16.03.2019. The
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR qualifications and eligibility for direct recruitment of Teachers in the University is prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor which states as under:
"1. Assistant Professor i. A Master's degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university.
ii. Besides fulfilling the above mentioned qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC/ICAR/CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./ Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from time to time as the case may he exempted from. NET/SLET/SET/."
15. Learned Senior counsel also points out by placing reliance on the UGC Notification which also deals with the Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018, wherein at clause 3.3 it is stated as under:
"3.3 The National Eligibility Test (NET) or an accredited test (State Level Eligibility Test SLET/SET) shall remain the minimum eligibility for appointment of Assistant Professor and equivalent positions wherever provided in these Regulations Further, SLET/SET shall be valid as the minimum eligibility for direct recruitment to Universities/ Colleges/Institutions in the respective state only.
Provided that candidates who have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2009, or the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2016, and their subsequent amendments from time to time, as the case may be, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or any equivalent position in any University, College or Institution.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR Provided further that the award of degree to candidates registered for the M.Phil/Ph.D. programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bye-laws/Regulations of the Institutions awarding the degree. All such Ph.D. candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:
a) The Ph.D. degree of the candidate has been awarded in regular mode only;
b) The Ph.D. thesis has been awarded by at least two external examiners,
c) An open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate has been conducted:
d) The candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one is in a refereed journal;
c) The candidate has presented at least two papers, based on his/her Ph.D. work in conferences/seminars sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ICSSR/CSIR or any similar agency.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR The fulfillment of these conditions is to be certified by the Registrar or the Dean (Academic Affairs) of the University concerned. II. The clearing of NET/SLET/SET shall not be required for candidates in such disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET has not been conducted."
16. Learned Senior counsel relies upon the following judgments in support of his case:
i. Sakshi Arha vs.Rajasthan High Court and others [2025 INSC 463];
ii. Divya vs. Union of India and others [(2024) 1 SCC 448]; and iii. Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and others [(2007) 4 SCC 54].
17. Learned Senior counsel contends that these three judgments cover the aspect of eligibility criteria, conditions and the cut-off date provided in the advertisement or in the Rules and the last date for filing of the application to be considered as a cut-off date while considering the application for requisite qualification in the recruitment Notification. Therefore, he contends that in
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR view of catena of judgments and the consistent rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court concerning the criteria, eligibility conditions and requirements prescribed under the recruitment Notification, the same must be strictly adhered to in both letter and spirit. Therefore, no candidate, including the petitioner, can claim eligibility after the recruitment notification or beyond the last date fixed for submitting the required certificates.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1.
19. The point that would arise for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner's eligibility for participation in the recruitment process can be considered in view of her securing the NET certification post the recruitment Notification cut-off date. This very aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied on by the learned Senior counsel. More specifically in the case of Divya (supra).
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR
20. Learned Senior counsel also relies upon the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.14 to 18 and 20 held as under:
"14. A review application was filed which was admitted. The matter was again placed before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar. One of the issues which fell for consideration of the Bench being Issue 1 reads as under: (SCC p. 21, para 5) "(1) Whether the view taken by the majority (Hon'ble Dr. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) that it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he was not qualified by the last date prescribed for receiving the applications, is correct in law and whether the majority was right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy?"
15. It was held: (SCC pp. 21-22, para 6) "So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated 1-9-1995 is concerned, we
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called for, prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview."
The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that in absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing of an application shall be considered as such.
16. Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cut-off date. He was, therefore, not eligible therefor.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR
17. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab this Court moreover disapproved the prevailing practice in the State of Punjab to determine the eligibility with reference to the date of interview, inter alia, stating: (SCC g pp. 267-68, para 13) "13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, Dist. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpanas the High Court a has held (1) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria b shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under c Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice."
(See Jasbir Rani v. State of Punjab.)
18. Yet again in Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar 10 this Court held that the following principles could be culled out from the aforementioned decisions: (SCC p. 523, para 5) "(1) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules.
(2) If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications.
(3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR
20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this d Court would be the last date for filing the application."
21. In the case of Divya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon the judgments in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) distinguished the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), wherein it dealt only with regard to the OBC certificate, wherein at para-62, it is held as under:
"62. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, [(2016) 4 SCC 754] is also directly in conflict with the judgment of three Hon'ble Judges in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [1997 4 SCC 18] wherein in para-6, it was held as under:
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR "6. So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated 1-9-1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law.
The proposition that where applications are called for, prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis."
22. Thereby, relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) of the Three Judge Bench judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest judgment in the case of Sakshi Arha (supra) at paragraph Nos.27, 29, 32, 34 and 35 held as under:
"27. On the subject of absence of last date to showcase their eligibility by a candidate apropos their equivalent claim, this Court clarified the correct position of law in its decision in Bhupinderpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, where, while upholding the view taken by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, held that the eligibility criteria for candidates aspiring public employment shall be determined pertaining to the cut-off date as outlined in the applicable rules of their respective service. In case the rules are silent, the decisive date is, ideally, indicated in the advertisement for recruitment. However, in case of absence of specifications in both context, the eligibility is to be adjudged in lieu of the
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR last date of submission of applications before the concerned authority or institute. This, thereby, ensures a clear temporal reference point for evaluating qualifications of a candidate as per the concerned advertisement.
29. This is now well-accepted, licit with clarification, also reiterated in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), and was accepted as recently as in the decision of this Court in Divya v. Union of India and Others, while dealing with crystallisation of right of EWS through issuance of Income and Asset Certificate, as issued by the competent authority.
32. The well-read legal minds, as the Appellants before us, cannot certainly, escape from the clutches of the principle laid down through the Latin maxim of ignorantia juris non excusat, which translates in literal English to "ignorance of the law is no excuse". The Advertisement certainly required them to produce a valid certificate to their claim as per rules and instructions, and in the prescribed format
34. Moreover, the decisions of this Court have cleared the air of any doubt that the claim made by a candidate while filling his or her application as per the concerned advertisement are to hold good as on the date of his or her application or as per the last date of submission of applications prescribed by the concerned advertisement.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR
35. It is true that, the Advertisement, in itself, did not clearly mention the date with regard to issuance of category certificate, and that it came from the Subsequent Notice which ascertained a cut- off date for acceptable certificates."
23. In the present case on hand, the recruitment Notification came to be issued on 12.11.2025 wherein it provided the eligibility of the candidate to be determined as per the last date of submission of the application i.e., 13.12.2025 wherein admittedly, the petitioner secured NET certification on 19.12.2025, as per the statement of the petitioner which came to be uploaded in the internet after the examination was conducted on 12.11.2025, produced at Annexure-J. The same is not in dispute to the fact that as on the date of the recruitment Notification dated 12.11.2025 or cut-off date provided for the last date for submission of the application dated 13.12.2025, admittedly, the petitioner did not secure or possess the NET certification to be eligible to be a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor called for in the recruitment
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR Notification for the post of Livestock Production and Management.
24. Therefore, in view of the petitioner being ineligible for having not submitted NET certification prior to the cut-off date or the date of last submission as per the recruitment Notification, respondent No.1 issued the list of ineligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor, whereby the petitioner's name is found at serial No.7 and against the name it is stated that 'candidate does not possess NET or Ph.D. in the subject of Livestock Production and Management'. This Court, vide Order dated 23.12.2025 directed the petitioner to participate in the scrutiny of the application and verification of the original documents held on 23.12.2025 and clearly stated that granting of such permission shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The petitioner takes shelter under the said interim order and also the fact that prior to announcement of the result or scrutiny of the documents, she has possessed and secured NET certification and
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR thereby, before the results could be announced or documents could be verified and scrutinized since she possesses the NET certification, she be permitted to participate in the further process does not impress this Court much and runs contrary to the required guidelines of the recruitment Notification and the cut-off date as well as the last date of submission prescribed in the Notification.
25. In view of catena of judgments relied on by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and also the recruitment Notification being very clear with respect to the eligibility criteria and the guidelines and same having not been possessed and secured by the petitioner as on the date of filing the application for the said post, I am of the opinion that the petitioner would not be eligible to participate in the present recruitment Notification for lack of possessing NET certification as on the last date of submission of the application i.e., 13.12.2025.
26. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:20 WP No. 204142 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER i. The petition is devoid of merits and is rejected.
ii. This would not mean that the petitioner would be barred forever. She would be at liberty to apply afresh whenever such Notification is called in future.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE NB/VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT:SI