Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. Not only that the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the above findings, but further went on to hold that the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) is in direct conflict with the judgment of Three Judges Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Chander Shekhar [(1997) 4 SCC 18]. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), it has been held that the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. It has also held that a person, who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered at all. Reasoning has also been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) have been noted and quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 62 of the judgment in the case of Divya (supra) which reads as under: -

"62. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya case is also directly in conflict with the judgment of three Hon'ble Judges in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar wherein in para 6, it was held as under: (Chander Shekhar case, SCC pp. 21-22) "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 adjudged 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."

It was further observed that in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.), there was no contention or issue raised that the eligibility enured or crystallized only on issuance of the certificate and on possession of the certificate before the prescribed cut-off date.

Their Lordships further observed that the judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.) was also directly in conflict with the judgment of Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. Chander Shekhar & Another reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 wherein it was held that if applications were called prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the same, the eligibility of the candidates was required to be judged with reference to that date alone. It was further held that a person who acquired the required qualification subsequent to such prescribed date, was not needed to be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constituted a representation to the public and the authority issuing it was bound by such representation who could not act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that the persons who obtained the qualification 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 qualification by the cut-off date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis.

70. From the aforesaid legal position, it emerges that the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.) will not apply in every case. In Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra.), the issue was not as to whether even after the cut-off date for submitting caste certificate as prescribed in the advertisement, the same can be accepted after the cut-off date. If the cut-off date for having a proper caste certificate by a candidate is stipulated in the applicable Rule, the candidate is bound to follow the said cut-off date, failing which his candidature will be considered under general category. If rule is silent, then the candidates are bound by the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement whereas if both the rule and advertisement are silent, then the eligibility of a candidate will be judged on the last date of filing of application and neither the candidate nor the recruiting authority is allowed to deviate from it. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such date, the same cannot be considered at all. The purpose of laying down such a principle is that if relaxation is given in accepting the caste certificates after the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement, it will be prejudicial to the candidates who did not apply believing themselves ineligible to fill the form for want of proper caste certificate. Thus, any relaxation given to a candidate for submitting caste certificate will then be selective leading to discrimination.