Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivani Gehlot vs Union Of India on 20 April, 2018
1 W.P. No.8871/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.8871/2018
(SHIVANI GEHLOT VS. UNION OF INDIA.)
Indore: dated:-20/4/2018
Shri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 to accept the
candidature of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Junior Executive (Electronics).
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is final semester student of Bachelor of Electronics and Communication Engineering and therefore she should be allowed to participate in the selection process by submitting the application form. He further submits that by the time the stage of the verification of the documents will come, the petitioner would clear the necessary examination and would submit the graduation degree. He also submits that in the similar circumstances the petitioner has been permitted to apply in pursuant to the Advertisement Annexure P-4 issued by the NTPC.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on the the perusal of the record it is noticed that the selection on the post of Junior Executive (Electronics) is to be done in pursuance to the advertisement No.1/2018 Annexure P-3. The essential qualification which has been prescribed for the said post in the advertisement is as under:
S.L.No. Name of post Essential Gate Branch qualification Gate Code 2 W.P. No.8871/2018 3 Junior Executive Full Time regular Electronics and (electronics) Bachelors' Degree communication in /EC.
Engineering/Techno logy with minimum, 60% marks in Electronics /Telecommunicatio ns Electrical with specilisation in Electronics from a recognised/deemed university or from an apex Institution ,i.e, IIT recognised by Government of India and having valid GATE Normalised Marks on GATE Score for the year 2018 No recruitment rule prescribing any cut off date for eligibility condition has been pointed out. In the advertisement no cut off date for obtaining the said essential qualification has been mentioned; therefore, the last date for submission of the application will be treated as cut off date. The advertisement reveals that the last date of submission of the application is 27.4.2018. Whereas in the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the last date of the examination of final Semester is in May,2018. Hence, admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the requisite essential qualification on the cutoff date.
The law in this regard is well settled that if any cutoff date for possessing the requisite eligibility condition is prescribed in the recruitment rule then the same will prevail, in absence of the cut off date if any prescribed in the 3 W.P. No.8871/2018 advertisement will be the relevant date and if no such date has been prescribed in the advertisement then the last date of submission of the application is treated as cutoff date for possessing the minimum essential qualification.
This Court in the matter of Akshay Kumar & Others Vs. MPPSC in W.P.No.10466/2016 considering the similar issue has held as under:-
8. So far as the issue of cut-off date for possessing the requisite eligibility qualification for recruitment to public employment is concerned, law is well settled that the cut-
off date with reference to which the eligibility requirement is to be satisfied is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if in the relevant service rules no such cut-off date is appointed, then the date so appointed in the advertisement calling application and if there is no such date appointed in the advertisement, then the last date of submission of application is the cut-off date.
9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shankar K. Mandal & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2003) 9 SCC 519 following earlier judgment has clearly culled out the following principles in this regard :-
..................The principles culled out from the decisions of this Court (see Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar, Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Jasbir Rani Vs. State of Punjab) are as follows:
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.
10. This aspect of the matter has again been considered by the 4 W.P. No.8871/2018 Supreme Court in the matter of Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Another, (2011) 9 SCC 438 and while taking note of the earlier judgment on the point it has been held that :-
"15. The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M.Tripura Sundari Devi, M.V. Nair v. Union of India, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: (Bhupinderpal Singh case, SCC p. 268, para 13) "13.....(i) 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 than 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 shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority."
11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinderpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2000) 5 SCC 262 has also summarized the above position in law by holding as :-
"Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., 5 W.P. No.8871/2018 Allahabad Vs. Alpana the High Courthas held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which theeligibility 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 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 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 Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice."
12. Thus, it is no longer res integra that if the cut-off date for eligibility requirement for public employment is to be determined, then at the first instance the relevant rule needs to be examined and if no cut-off date is prescribed therein, then the advertisement and if no cut-off date is prescribed in the advertisement, then the last date of submission of the application is relevant.
Hence, no error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's candidature.
So far as the issue of producing the requisite documents at the stage of verification is concerned such an argument cannot be accepted because the requisite essential qualification is to be seen on the cutoff date which the petitioner in the present case does not possess.
So far as the reliance of the counsel for the petitioner on Annexure P-4 is concerned the said advertisement relates to a different selection process. Therefore, anything rightly or wrongly done in that process will not form a basis for permitting the petitioner to submit the application in the 6 W.P. No.8871/2018 present recruitment process specially when no such legal right exists in his favour.
In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the respondents in refusing to accept the petitioner's candidature.
Hence, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly, dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge das Digitally signed by REENA DAS Date: 2018.04.22 15:16:21 +05'30'