Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2022 · Allahabad High Court · 2025
Case Details
of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview.”(emphasis added)
18. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid case reference to Rekha Chaturvedi [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] appears to have been made by a typographical error as the said judgment is by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. In fact the Court wanted to make a reference to the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) [1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 857 : (1993) 24 ATC 798] .
19. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 262 : 2000 7 WRIA No. 12254 of 2025 SCC (L&S) 639 : AIR 2000 SC 2011] this Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court held : (SCC p. 268, para 13) “13. … 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 then 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."(emphasis supplied)
20. This Court lately in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari [(2012) 9 SCC 545 : (2012) 9 SCC (L&S) 795 : AIR 2012 SC 3281] held : (SCC p. 550, para 14) "14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal [1993 Supp (1) SCC 714 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 246 : (1993) 23 ATC 783] and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [(2008) 7 SCC 153 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 244] .)” (emphasis supplied) A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [(2008) 7 SCC 153 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 244] and State of Orissa v.Mamata Mohanty [(2011) 3 SCC 436 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 83] .
21. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application though he 8 WRIA No. 12254 of 2025 applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which was provisional and conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification i.e. eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23-2-2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the settled position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court.
22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.
23. There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal appointment. The extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance."
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. In view of aforesaid, such a direction cannot be issued to the authorities for the prayer so made by petitioner since there is no substantive or statutory right inherent in petitioner for grant of writ in 9 WRIA No. 12254 of 2025 nature of such a mandamus.
11. In view of discussion made herein above, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 16, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview.”(emphasis added)
18. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid case reference to Rekha Chaturvedi [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] appears to have been made by a typographical error as the said judgment is by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. In fact the Court wanted to make a reference to the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) [1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 857 : (1993) 24 ATC 798] .
19. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 262 : 2000 7 WRIA No. 12254 of 2025 SCC (L&S) 639 : AIR 2000 SC 2011] this Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court held : (SCC p. 268, para 13) “13. … 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 then 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."(emphasis supplied)
20. This Court lately in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari [(2012) 9 SCC 545 : (2012) 9 SCC (L&S) 795 : AIR 2012 SC 3281] held : (SCC p. 550, para 14) "14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal [1993 Supp (1) SCC 714 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 246 : (1993) 23 ATC 783] and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [(2008) 7 SCC 153 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 244] .)” (emphasis supplied) A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [(2008) 7 SCC 153 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 244] and State of Orissa v.Mamata Mohanty [(2011) 3 SCC 436 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 83] .
21. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application though he 8 WRIA No. 12254 of 2025 applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which was provisional and conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification i.e. eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23-2-2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the settled position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court.
22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.
23. There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal appointment. The extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance."
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. In view of aforesaid, such a direction cannot be issued to the authorities for the prayer so made by petitioner since there is no substantive or statutory right inherent in petitioner for grant of writ in 9 WRIA No. 12254 of 2025 nature of such a mandamus.
11. In view of discussion made herein above, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 16, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench