cites: 171406871

Ashok Kumar Sharma And Anr. vs Chander Shekher And Anr. on 18 December, 1992

The decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another v. Chander Shekher and Another (1993 Supp (2) SCC 611) was rendered in respect of a notification dated 9.6.1982 whereby applications were invited for the post of Junior Engineer in the service of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The last date stipulated for submission of applications was 15.7.1982. A pass in B.E.(Civil) examination was the minimum academic/technical qualification required for applying for the post. A large number of persons applied WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 13 pursuant to the said advertisement. 33 among the applicants had appeared for the B.E.(Civil) examination before 15.7.1982, but the results were published on 21.8.1982. The interviews were held from 24.8.1982 onwards. Though the 33 candidates were not qualified as on the specified date, they were interviewed and selected. Their selection was challenged in W.P.(C).No.250 of 1983 filed in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir contending that they had not acquired the requisite qualification as on the prescribed date namely 15.7.1982. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment delivered on 27.5.1983. No appeal was taken from the said judgment and it attained finality. Later, 4 other candidates filed W.P.(C).No.483 of 1983 in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir questioning the selection of the said 33 candidates. While the said writ petition was pending, appointment orders were issued based on the select list. The petitioners in W.P.(C). No.483 of 1983 were placed above the 33 candidates, whose selection they had questioned. Later, on 5.9.1984, another batch of selected candidates was appointed. W.P.(C).No.483 of 1983 was dismissed following the order dated 27.5.1983 dismissing W.P.(C).No.250 of 1983. An appeal was taken before a Division Bench and it was allowed by judgment dated 13.12.1991. The Division Bench held that the 33 candidates could not have been allowed to appear in the interview for WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 14 the reason that they had not acquired the requisite academic/technical qualification by the prescribed date. The Division Bench however directed that the appointment of the said 33 candidates need not be set aside, but they should be treated as junior to all those selected persons who were fully qualified by the prescribed date. The 33 candidates and the State of Jammu & Kashmir moved the Apex Court.

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 218 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others vs Chander Shekhar & Another on 10 March, 1997

15. The Apex Court held that as the 33 persons were not qualified as on the prescribed date, they could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. It was held 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 and that a person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. The very same principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others [(2007) 4 SCC 54) wherein after a survey of the WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 17 case law on the point, including the decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another [(1997) 4 SCC 18], the Apex Court held as follows:

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 238 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr on 2 May, 2007

54) and Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal and Another [(2007) 10 SCC 260] that the petitioners did not possess the prescribed educational qualification as on 1.1.2012, the date stipulated in the notification, that they have not produced any material to show that the result of the examination held in November, 2011 was declared before the stipulated date i.e., 1.1.2012 and therefore, as the petitioners have not proved that they possessed the prescribed educational qualification as on 1.1.2012, the date specified in the notification, the mere fact that they were allowed to participate in the written test based on the statement made by them in the application form that they possess the prescribed educational qualification, is not a reason to hold that as on the specified date they possessed the prescribed educational qualification.

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 65 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs University Of Rajasthan And Ors on 13 January, 1993

Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualification by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at 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 WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 16 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 328 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others on 23 February, 2007

15. The Apex Court held that as the 33 persons were not qualified as on the prescribed date, they could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. It was held 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 and that a person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. The very same principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others [(2007) 4 SCC 54) wherein after a survey of the WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 17 case law on the point, including the decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another [(1997) 4 SCC 18], the Apex Court held as follows:

Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 397 - S B Sinha - Full Document

U.P. Public Service Commission vs Alpana on 17 January, 1994

In the facts of the present case we fail to appreciate how the ratio of the said decision of this Court, can be attracted. The facts of this case reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of application was August 20, 1988. No rule or practice is shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of her application. The Public Service Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview. The High Court in Writ Petition No.1898 of 1991 mandated the Public Service Commission to interview her but directed to withhold the result until further orders. In obedience to the direction of the High Court the Public Service Commission interviewed her but her result was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the High Court while WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 18 disposing of the matter finally directed the Public Service Commission to declare her result and, if successful, to forward her name for appointment. The High Court even went to the length of ordering the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate her. This approach of the High Court cannot be supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview her in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of application. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal."

Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 192 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search