Rajesh Kumar v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak

“ 13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar & Anr., 1997 (3) RSJ 26(SC): JT 1997(4) SC 99; A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors., 1990 (2) RSJ 141 (SC): 1990(4) SLR 235; The Distt. Collector and Chairman, Social Welfare Residential School Society Vizianagaram and Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Deve 1990(2) RSJ 139 (SC): 1990(4) SLR 237; Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors;, CWP. No. 13717 of 2010 -5- 1993(2) RSJ 329 (SC): JT 1993(1) SC 220; Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1993 (2) RSJ 347 (SC): 1993(2) SCC 429; and U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Alpana, 1994(3) RSJ 438 (SC): JT 1994 (1) SC 94, the High Court has held (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. 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 done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.” In view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to allow the appointees who acquired eligibility up to the date of interview, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner be also given appointment. The contention of the petitioner is misconceived and is rejected. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to the date of eligibility can be summarized. The eligibility of a candidate is to be examined on the date, if any, specified under the rules. If, there is no rule prescribing the date of eligibility, the cut of date specified in the advertisement calling for the applications. Even if, no cut of date is CWP. No. 13717 of 2010 -6- prescribed in the advertisement for determining the eligibility, the last date notified for receipt of application has to be construed as the cut of date to determine the eligibility of a candidate. In the present case no date of eligibility is prescribed under statutory rules. In the advertisement also no specific date for acquiring the eligibility is specified Under such circumstances, the last date for making application i.e. 10.9.2009 by which date the applications were to be received has to be construed as the cut of date for determination of the eligibility. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not possessed of the requisite qualification i.e. N.E.T/S.L.E.T nor he had the Ph.D Degree to his credit on the said date. He being ineligible on the last date of making applications, he has been rightly denied the appointment. No merit, petition dismissed.

4.8.2010. Whether to be reported? Yes. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE