SAPNA MEENA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA ANR

MS. INDU .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 8923/2024 & CM APPL. 36407/2024 ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 9191/2024 & CM APPLs. 37559-60/2024, MS PAYAL .....Petitioner versus Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 9206/2024 & CM APPLs. 37688-89/2024 MR VIKAS .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 9207/2024 & CM APPLs. 37690-91/2024 MS KHUSHBU .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 9366/2024 & CM APPL. 38497/2024 ATMARAM VYAS .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 9827/2024 & CM APPL. 40349/2024 DIPTI JANGRA .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 11019/2024 & CM APPL. 45560/2024 RUPANGI DWIVEDI AND ORS .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 11021/2024 & CM APPL. 45574/2024 PREETI AND ORS .....Petitioners versus Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 13466/2024 & CM APPL. 56367/2024 KOMAL .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 14398/2024 & CM APPL. 60375/2024 RAVINDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 14862/2024 & CM APPL. 62406/2024 AKHAND PRATAP & ORS. .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 14633/2024 & CM APPL. 61434/2024 ANUSHREE SHAHOO .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Appearances: Petitioner: Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar & Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Advocates in Item Nos. 113 to 116 & 124. Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Mr. Dipansh Mishra, Mr. Utkarsh Mishra, Ms. Geetanjali Yadav & Anil Pratham, Advocates in Item Nos. 126, 127 & 130. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. Respondent: Mr. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate in Item Nos. 117-123, 125, 128, 129 and 131. Mr. Amartya A. Sharan, Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Mr. Akash Kishore and Mr. Animesh Rajoriya, Advocates for NESTS. Ms. Iram Majid, CGSC with Mr. Mohd. Suboor, Mr. Seham Khan, Advocates for UOI in Item No. 109. Mr. Hemant Kumar Yadav, SPC for UOI with Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, GP for UOI in Item No. 113. Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak & Mr. Pushender Pratap Singh, Advocates for UOI in Item Nos. 114, 115 & 116. Mr. Nirvikar Verma & Mr. Varun Arora, Advocates for UOI in Item No. 117. Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh & Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advocates for UOI in Item Nos. 118. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Zubin Singh, Advocates for UOI/R-1. [M:-9555672532] Mr. Anshuman Singh & Mr. Aakasn Pathak, GP for UOI in Item No. 120. [M:-9971724716]. Mr. Farman Ali, SPC with Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, GP, Ms. Usha Jamnal & Ms. Harshita Chaturvedi, Advocates for UOI in Item No. 121. Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC with Mr. Aakash Pathak, Advocates for UOI in Item No. 122. [M:- 971724716] Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, GP for R-1 in item No. 126. [M:-9555536530]. Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, GP for UOI in Item No. 124. Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Mr. Amit Acharya, GP & Mr. Vinay Kaushik & Mr. Vipul Verma, Advocates for UOI in Item No. 125. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Saxena & Ms. Harshita Sharma, Advocates for UOI in Item No. 126 Mr. Abhishek Yadav, SPC Advocate for R-1 in Item No. 130. [M:-9811319032]. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. Mr. Umang Chopra, SPC & Mr. Karan Malhotra, GP for UOI in Item No. 127. Mr. Anshuman, SPC with Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, GP with Ms. Harshita Chaturvedi, Advocate for UOI in Item No. 128. Mr. Avtaar Singh Deol, Sr. Panel Counsel for R- 1/UOI in Item No. 129. Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC with Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, GP, Mr. Chetan & Mrs. Lipi Garg, Advocates for UOI in Item No. 131. Mr. Anshuman Sharma, Mr. Azaz Ahmed, Advocates for R-2 in Item No. 131. [M:-9910207302]. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. These writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, have been filed by candidates for various posts, who applied for appointment in terms of Information Bulletins published by National Education Society for Tribal Students [“NESTS”] in the year 2023. The petitions have been heard together as the petitioners raise a common question, which is whether NESTS was obliged to alter the prescribed cut-off date for fulfilling eligibility conditions, when it extended the last date for filing of applications from time to time. A. Facts 2. NESTS is an autonomous organization established under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. It carries out recruitment for various posts in Eklavya Model Residential Schools [“EMRS”], including Post Graduate Teachers [“PGT”], Trained Graduate Teachers [“TGT”], Trained Graduate Teacher (Physical Education Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. Teacher) [“TGT (PET)”] and Hostel Wardens (male) and (female). In the year 2023, it published Information Bulletins and Guidelines with regard to the EMRS Staff Selection Exam [“ESSE”], 2023. The Information Bulletins laid down detailed eligibility conditions for applicants, which included criteria with regard to their age, category [for example General, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Persons with benchmark disability], educational qualifications, etc.

3. When the Information Memorandums were first published, candidates were permitted to submit online forms for TGTs and Hostel Wardens until 23:50 hours on 18.08.2023, and for all other posts, including PGTs, until 23:50 hours on 31.07.2023.

4. Chapter 3 of the Information Bulletins, headed “EMRS Staff Selection Exam [ESSE] – 2023”, under the heading, “Other Instructions” provides as follows: (a) For TGTs and Hostel Wardens [hereinafter, “TGT’s etc.”] “f. The cut-off date for determining various eligibility criteria (Educational Qualifications, age limit etc.) will be 18/08/2023. Before applying, applicants must satisfy themselves about their eligibility as on 18/08/2023.” (b) For PGTs and all other posts [hereinafter, “PGT’s etc.”] “f. The cut-off date for determining various eligibility criteria (Educational Qualifications, age limit etc.) will be 31st July 2023. Before applying, applicants must satisfy themselves about their eligibility as on 31st July 2023.”

5. Chapter 4 of the Information Memorandums is entitled “Eligibility Criteria and Qualification”. After specifying the specific educational qualifications required for each post advertised, Chapter 4 included the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. following stipulations under the heading “Note”, which is as follows: ¥ “Those applying in response to ESSE-2023 advertisement should satisfy themselves regarding their eligibility for the post applied for. ¥ The candidate must have certificate of minimum required qualification at the time of submission of application.”

6. As far as PGTs etc. are concerned, the last date of submission of applications was first extended until 18.08.2023 and thereafter until

19.10.2023. As far as TGTs etc. are concerned, the last date was also extended until 19.10.2023. It is the undisputed position that, while extending the last date for submission of forms, NESTS did not make any express stipulation as to whether the eligibility date remained the original eligibility date, i.e. 18.08.2023 [For TGTs etc.]/31.07.2023 [For PGTs etc.], or those also stood extended. However, there was some modification in the eligibility criteria, with regard to some of the posts in the extension notification. 7. In the present batch of cases, the undisputed factual position is that the candidates had taken the examinations for their qualifying degrees prior to the original cut-off dates, but their results were declared during the extended period for submission of applications. The hearing of the petitions has, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the petitioners obtained their qualifying degrees before the last date of submission of applications, but not before the original cut-off dates stipulated in the Information Memorandums. The contention of the petitioners is that the cut-off dates in respect of the eligibility criteria, should also have been extended to align with the new deadlines for submission of forms. 8. Interim applications filed in some of the writ petitions were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. dismissed by order dated 15.05.20241. B. Withdrawal of writ petitions by some of the petitioners 9. At the very outset, I am informed that several of the petitioners have in fact been issued provisional letters of appointment to the posts in question. To that extent, the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous as far as those petitioners are concerned, and learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw the writ petitions, qua those petitioners. Mr. Amartya A. Sharan, learned counsel for NESTS, submits that proceedings for their removal, on the ground that they did not fulfil the original eligibility criteria by the cut-off date in question, have been commenced in some cases, and are in contemplation in other cases. However, he accepts that candidates, who have already been appointed, can be removed only after following the procedure provided in the relevant service rules. In such circumstances, the writ petitions, preferred by those candidates who have already been issued letters of appointment, are permitted to be withdrawn. This is, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, in the event proceedings of any nature have been initiated, or are initiated in future, against them on this account. 10. This direction applies to the following parties, whose names have been supplied by learned counsel for the petitioners: Case No. Petitioner No. 11 18 23 Petitioner Name Mr. Jasmeet Mr. Shubham Meena Mr. Akhilesh 1 CM APPL. 29153/2024 in WP(C) 2824/2024; CM APPL. 29148/2024 in WP(C) 2901/2024; CM APPL. 29152/2024 in WP (C) 5484/2024; and CM APPL. 29156/2024 in WP (C) 5544/2024. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. WP (C) WP (C) WP (C) WP (C) WP (C) 24 31 43 47 5 7 8 15 13 10 Mr. Digpal Mr. Ravinder Mr. Vidyadhar Kumar Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma Mr. Ravi Pandey Mr. Ajay Maurya Ms. Vandana Nehra Mr. Alok Ranjan Mr. Dinesh Sankhala Mr. Lokesh Yadav Sole Petitioner Ms. Anjali C. Submissions of Counsel 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioners, arguments were principally advanced by Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, learned counsel, and supplemented by other learned counsel. On behalf of the respondents, arguments were advanced by Mr. Sharan. 12. Ms. Mazumdar submits that the petitioners had all taken their qualifying examinations prior to the original cut-off date, but were waiting for their results. They had thus completed the qualifying requirements, but their certificates had not been issued prior to those dates. Upon issuance of the certificates, they applied prior to the extended last date for submission of applications. 13. Ms. Mazumdar also drew my attention to some correspondence between the candidates and NESTS, with regard to extension of the cut- off date. By an email dated 29.10.20232 one of the TGT (PET) 2 Annexure P-5 in W.P.(C) 2824/2024. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. candidates, Mr. Akshay Kumar, addressed NESTS as follows: “Dear Sir, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to bring your kind attention towards the cut-off date for determining eligibility criteria for the upcoming ESSE-2023. As per the notification, the cut-off for determining various eligibility criteria (Education qualifications, age limit etc.) was 18/08/2023 i.e, the last date for submission of application. The application form reopens and participation of more such eligible candidates but there was no any information regarding the extension of cut-date of eligibility criteria. it was extended till 19/10/2023 further We, the applicants, request you to change the cutoff date to 19-10- 2023 (the last date of submission of application) and release a corrigendum regarding this change on the website. This change will ensure that a broader range of qualified candidates can participate in the recruitment process. We believe that this adjustment aligns with your commitment to providing equal opportunities and a fair evaluation of candidates’ qualifications. Thanking You Sincerely,”3

14. NESTS’s response dated 30.10.20234 was as follows: “Dear Candidate:- You are requested to go through the Information Bulletin Chapter-4 which is available on the website. https://emrs.tribal.gov.in”

15. Mr. Akshay Kumar addressed a further e-mail to NESTS on 01.11.20235, which reads as follows: “We've already gone through the Chapter 4 information bulletin which is absolutely okay. Our concern is about the cut-off date for eligibility criteria which is mentioned in point (f) of Other Instructions in Information bulletin's Chapter 3 which is against the norms/trends being followed in other similar recruitment exams in which the cut-off date is decided according to the date of close of application form and is also extended if application form reopens. 3 Emphasis supplied. 4 Annexure P-6 in W.P.(C) 2824/2024. 5 Annexure R-10 to the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) 2901/2024. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. In short, cutoff date should be 19-10-2023 instead of 18-08-2023. We, the applicants, request you to convey this message to the concerned officials to take necessary action in favour of the aspirants. Thanking you Sincerely yours,”6

16. The respondent’s reply, also dated 01.11.2023, was a verbatim copy of the earlier reply dated 30.10.2023. 17. Based upon these communications, Ms. Mazumdar submits that, in response to the candidates’ request for clarification, NESTS only referred to Chapter 4 of the Information Bulletins, and not to Chapter 3. The condition in Chapter 4 being for possession of certificates at the time of submission of applications, candidates were misled into believing that the last date for qualification had also been extended accordingly. She submits that, at the very least, the contents of the Information Bulletins, read with the representations of the respondents, led to considerable ambiguity, which should be resolved in favour of the petitioners, rather than against them. Ms. Mazumdar points out that the petitioners’ applications were in fact accepted, and they have also qualified for appointment. She contends the original cut-off dates were synchronised with the original application dates, and continuing with the same process would make a larger pool of candidates available for selection. This would thus enure not just to the benefit of the candidates, but also to the benefit of the prospective employer – NESTS. 18. Mr. Sharan, on the other hand, submits that a cut-off date for eligibility must be treated as sacrosanct. The application of an eligibility cut-off may operate harshly against some potential candidates, but that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. cannot be a reason to relax the date, particularly because other similarly placed candidates may have refrained from applying, in the knowledge that they did not fulfil the stipulated qualification criteria before the cut- off date provided. 19. Learned counsel for the parties have cited certain judgments in support of their contentions, which will also be dealt with below in this judgment. D. Analysis 20. The following judgments of the Supreme Court deal with the question raised in these writ petitions: a. In Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan & Ors.7, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that a fixed date for assessment of the candidate’s qualifications can be provided in the advertisement, failing which the last date for making applications would be the relevant date8. b. In Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar & Anr.9, the Supreme Court allowed a review petition against its judgment10 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5407-08 of 1992, decided on 18.12.1992. The sanctity of the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement or for applications has been emphasised, notification calling following the judgment in Rekha Chaturvedi11. The Court has 6 Emphasis supplied. 7 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168. 8 Paragraph 10 of the said judgment has been extracted in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Uma Shankar Sharma, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1911, in paragraph 24 below. 9 (1997) 4 SCC 18. 10 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611. 11 Supra (Note 7), paragraph 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:05.02.2025 09:10:21 W.P.(C) 10126/2024 & connected matters. specifically rejected the justification that the best talent would be available if the employer is permitted to assess the eligibility on the date of selection. c. In Jasbir Rani & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.12, the Court was concerned with a cut-off date pertaining to age of the applicants. The Court held that in the absence of a statutory provision in that regard, the date has to be fixed at the time of issuing the advertisement. d. In Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors.13, the Court held that the cut-off date for determination of qualifications would be the last date of filing applications, in the event no date is specified in the advertisement or reference. This principle is expressly subject to the qualification that it applied if no date has been fixed in the advertisement. e. In DDA v. Rajesh Dua14, the Court was concerned with a case in which eligibility was to be reckoned on the last date of submission of applications. It was held that if the result of the candidate’s examinations had not been declared by the said date, the candidate could not be taken to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria, even if the examination had taken place within the stipulated time. f. In State of Bihar & Ors. v. Madhu Kant Ranjan & Anr.15 also, the Court emphasised the necessity of compliance with eligibility