Pet it ioners v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot her s

Advocat es : Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocat e assist ed by Mr. Chandra Shekhar Dalakot i, Advocat e for pet it ioners Mr. Narayan Dut t , St anding Counsel for t he St at e Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Senior Advocat e assist ed by Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocat e for t he cav eat or. Mr. Him anshu Joshi, Advocat e holding brief of Mr. V.S. Rawat , Advocat e for r espondent No. 3. Reserv ed on : 26.11.2025 Deliver ed on : .28.11.2025 H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.

1. Since com m on quest ions of law and fact are involved in t hese pet it ions, t herefore t hey are heard t oget her and are being decided by a com m on j udgm ent . However, for t he sake of brevit y, fact s of Writ Pet it ion No. 2028 of 2025 ( SS) alone are being discussed and considered.

2. Dist rict Educat ion Officer ( Elem ent ary) , Cham pawat and Pit horagarh have issued advert isem ent invit ing applicat ion eligible persons appoint m ent as Assist ant Teacher in Governm ent Prim ary Schools. As per t he advert isem ent , one should 1 possess Bachelor’s Degree wit h t wo- year Diplom a in Elem ent ary Educat ion ( D.El.Ed) or four- year B.El.Ed, or t wo- year D.Ed from an inst it ut ion recognised by Nat ional Council for Teacher Educat ion ( NCTE) .

3. As per t he advert isem ent issued in respect of dist rict Cham pawat , last dat e for subm ission of applicat ion is 28.11.2025, while for Dist rict Pit horagarh, last dat e indicat ed is 30.11.2025. Pet it ioners are not eligible for appoint m ent , as t hey are st ill pursuing t wo- year D.El.Ed course from different inst it ut es.

4. According t o pet it ioners, t hey are about t o com plet e D.El.Ed course and t heir result is likely t o be declared in t he m ont h of Decem ber, 2025, t herefore t hey have approached t his Court for ext ending t he deadline fixed for subm ission of applicat ion, in t he advert isem ent , t o enable t hem t o com plet e t heir educat ional qualificat ion in t he m eant im e.

5. The reliefs sought in Writ Pet it ion No. 2028 of 2025 ( SS) are as follow: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to relax condition no. (2) of the advertisements qua the petitioners, issued on 7th November 2025, and extend 15 days' time for petitioners for submitting application form for the post of Assistant teacher, Govt. Primary school w.e.f. the last date as mentioned in the advertisement. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accept application forms of the petitioners for the post of Assistant teacher, Govt. Primary school through off line mode within extended period of 15 days and permit the petitioners to participate in selection process for the said post. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Uttarakhand Education Board, Ramnagar, the respondent no.3, to conduct final evaluation examination of petitioners at the earliest and declare the result of such examination at the earliest, preferably within two days. 2 IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to declare the result of the petitioners for the post of Assistant teacher in Government Primary school after completion of selection process, and the petitioners may be recommended and offered appointments on the post of Assistant teacher in Government Primary school.”

6. Pet it ioners have also sought a direct ion t o t he Ut t arakhand Educat ion Board, Ram nagar, Dist rict Nainit al, t o conduct final evaluat ion exam inat ion for D.El.Ed course pursued by t he pet it ioners and also t o declare result of such exam inat ion at t he earliest .

7. Learned St at e Counsel is right in subm it t ing t hat one should be possessed of all requisit e qualificat ions last dat e for subm ission of applicat ion. Pet it ioners are yet t o com plet e D.El.Ed course. The select ion process cannot be kept on hold t ill t he t im e pet it ioners com plet e t heir qualificat ion. Fixing of last dat e for subm ission of applicat ion is sole prerogat ive of t he em ployer and j udicial int erference in such m at t er would derail t he select ion process. Moreover, it will t hen becom e unending process and m any m ore persons who are yet t o com plet e t heir qualificat ion, will also claim sim ilar relief.

8. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in case of A sh o k K u m a r Sh a r m a a n d o t h e r s Vs. Ch a n d e r Sh e k h a r a n d a n o t h e r , report ed as ( 1 9 9 7 ) 4 SCC 1 8 has held as under: “6. ………… 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 judged 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 3 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 treated on a preferential basis. Their not have been 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 [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] . 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 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.

7. Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the 33 candidates, submitted that these 33 candidates had appeared for the B.E. Examination prior to their applying for the post and that there was some delay in publishing the results and that these respondents cannot be punished for the delay on the part of the authorities concerned in publishing the results. In our opinion, the said contention is beside the point. In these proceedings, we cannot examine the reasons for delay — assuming that there was delay in publishing the results. That issue is outside the purview of the writ petition. Whatever may be the reason, the 33 persons were not qualified as on the prescribed date and, therefore, could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. On the first issue (mentioned in the Order dated 1-9-1995), therefore, we hold in favour of the review petitioners, affirming the opinion of Sahai, J.

9. Fact rem ains t hat pet it ioners do not possess necessary t eacher t raining qualificat ion, recognised by NCTE, as yet and as per clause [k( 2) of t he advert isem ent , one m ust possess all requisit e qualificat ions on t he last dat e of subm ission of applicat ion.

10. Every select ion has t o be com plet ed wit hin t im e- bound m anner and em ployer is free t o decide t he last dat e for subm ission of applicat ion. The deadline fixed 4 for subm ission of applicat ion cannot be ext ended on t he asking of candidat es, who are yet t o com plet e t heir educat ional qualificat ion and ext ension once grant ed will open pandora’s box, as m any m ore candidat es, who are t he process of acquiring necessary qualificat ion, will also claim ext ension of deadline for part icipat ing in t he select ion.

11. Learned Senior Counsel t he pet it ioners cont ended t hat pet it ioners’ right t o be considered for appoint m ent would be violat ed last dat e subm ission of applicat ion is not ext ended. Alt hough, right t o be considered for public em ploym ent is a fundam ent al right , but t hat right ext ends only t o individuals who m eet all t he eligibilit y crit eria specified by t he relevant rules.

12. Possessing a t eachers t raining qualificat ion, recognised by NCTE is an essent ial condit ion of eligibilit y. A candidat e having t wo- year D.El.Ed, four- year B.El.Ed or t wo- year D.Ed is eligible appoint m ent as t eacher in a prim ary school. Pet it ioners do not possess any of t hese qualificat ions. Merely because t hey are pursuing D.El.Ed course, will not m ake t hem eligible and t hey will becom e eligible when Diplom a or Degree of passing t eachers t raining course is awarded t o t hem .

13. A person who does not possess requisit e educat ional qualificat ion for appoint m ent t o a post t ill t he last dat e for subm ission of applicat ion cannot seek a writ of m andam us t o ext end t he deadline fixed for subm ission of applicat ion. 5

14. Thus, t he reliefs claim ed by pet it ioners cannot be grant ed. Writ pet it ions fail and are dism issed. Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 28.11.2025 6