Rajasthan Vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt  INSC
637 (1 August 1997)
V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1997 Present:
Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar Hon'ble mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Rao K.S.Bhati, M.K.Singh,
Advs. for the appellant Rajendra Singhvi and A.K.Singh, Advs for the Respondent
O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D
E R Leave granted.
both sides. In the Advertisement No.1 of 1992 which was issued on 9.6.92 it was
stated that the application form must reach the office of the Zila Parishad, Dungarpur
latest by 5.00 p.m. on 29.6.92. The prescribed
qualifications of B.S.T.C. or its equivalent, recognised by the State
Government. The last paragraph of advertisement stated that no
certificates/marks-sheet will be accepted after the receipt of application
forms in the office.
respondent did not possess the requisite technical qualification on 29.6.92
which was the last date for submitting application. He had appeared for the B.Ed.
examination but the results were not declared on 29.6.97.
results were declared only on 6.8.92. The interviews for the advertised posts
were held from 1st of September, 1992 onwards.
respondent was not called for an interview since on the date of the receipt of
his application, he did not possess any technical qualification. On 1.9.92 he
filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan and obtained an interim
order requiring the appellant to call him for an interview. Pursuant to this
interim order, he was interviewed and thereafter, on the basis of the
directions which the respondent obtained from the High Court, he was included
in the list of selected candidates. He was appointed thereafter on a
provisional basis subject to the outcome of this writ petition.
tot he respondent he has now been confirmed.
writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court by this order
dated 17.7.95, holding that the cut-off date for ascertaining the eligibility
of the respondent under the said advertisement was the last date prescribed for
submission of the application i.e. 29.6.92.
5.2.96 the services of the respondent were discontinued.
respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which
has been allowed. The present appeal is from the decision of the Division
to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the
respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by the
respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been
confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case
should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the
appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning. The
respondent's application was not considered and he was not called for an
interview. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the
respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his
appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition.
cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the
respondent find himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating
to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case.
There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date
of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because
they did not possesss the requisite qualification on the prescribed date.
Relaxing he prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may,
therefore, cause injustice to others.
premises, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. We, therefore, allows
the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the writ
petition filed by the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.