Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The petitioner laid emphasis on following note appended with the 'other particular' clause of the advertisement, to contend that the amended Regulation would apply.

"(vkj{k.k dh fLFkfr ,oa fu;qfDr izfØ;k jkT; ljdkj ds funsZ"kksa ,oa uohure fu;eksa ds v/;/khu ifjorZuh; gksxhA bl izdkj lacaf/kr lsok fu;eksa esa ;fn dksbZ la"kks/ku gksrk gS] rks HkrhZ@laoh{kk ijh{kk mlds vuqlkj vk;ksftr dh tk,xh] ftlds fy, ;Fkkle; vf/klwfpr dj fn;k tk,xkA)"

16. The appellant-State filed reply to the writ petition and opposed petitioner's stand by contending that the relaxation of 5% was not available to OBC candidates in terms of Regulation 3.4.1, as it existed, on the date of issuance of the advertisement, i.e. 12.01.2015. It was contended that the University Grants (7 of 14) [SAW-1046/2018] Commission Regulations, which came to be amended on 11.07.2016, cannot be made applicable to the vacancies advertised prior to conferment of such benefit to the OBC Candidates. In relation to the corrigenda dated 15.10.2015; 04.03.2016; and 01.09.2016; it was sought to be clarified that the same were confined to the stipulation regarding additional vacancies, scheme for examination and syllabus etc. and as far as eligibility conditions are concerned, there was no amendment/alteration and they were freezed on the date of issuance of the advertisement.

18. The State Government by way of the present intra-Court appeal called in question the judgment and order dated 28.11.2017, passed by learned Single Judge, primarily on the ground that the relaxation of 5% ordered to be given to the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes is impermissible in law and the judgment unsustainable.

19. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State contended that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in making the amended Regulation No.3.4.1 applicable to the advertisement which was issued (on 12.01.2015) prior to the amendment. He submitted that it is settled proposition of law that the educational qualification and other eligibility conditions have to be reckoned as prevalent on the date of advertisement and that any subsequent amendment in the eligibility criteria cannot be applied to the recruitment initiated prior to such amendment. In support of his contention, learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court which are as follows:

25. It is settled canon of law that the eligibility conditions and educational qualifications are required to be reckoned as prevailing on the date of the advertisement. In some cases it may however relate to a specific date mentioned in the advertisement or as per the last date of submitting application form, in tune with the relevant rules.

26. In the present case, the concerned clause of the advertisement dated 12.01.2015 unequivocally provides: "as laid down in Gazette of India, September, 18 th 2010". The date of advertisement was 12.01.2015, whereas the last date of filling up (11 of 14) [SAW-1046/2018] application form was 27.02.2015 (which incidentally was extended till 31.03.2015). As such the educational qualification and other eligibility criteria prevailing on 12.01.2015 have to be taken into consideration.

830. We have carefully considered the decision but we do not find anything therein contrary to the view taken in Calton case."

Secondly, in NT Devin Katti & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. (supra) relevant portion whereof is being reproduced hereinfra:-

"11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selections in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystalises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon (13 of 14) [SAW-1046/2018] the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant Rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant Rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the Rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of Rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature."