ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. versus CHANDER SHEKHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 10-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. 
v. 
CHANDER SHEKHAR AND ANR. 
MARCH 10, 1997 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR AND 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Recruitment-Eligibility-Relevant date for-Determination of-Adver-
tisement invited applications prescribing minimum qualification to be pos-
sessed on the last date of submission of application-Certain candidates who 
did not possess the minimum qualification on the last date of submission of 
application were allowed to appear for the interview-However, these can-
didates acquire the minimum qualification before the interview-Held : Al-
.
11
D lowing such candidates to appear for the interview was 
1
impennissible--Contrary--Majority opinion in Ashok Kumar Shanna's case 
was a clear error apparent on the face of the record and unsustainable in 
law-However, in that decision the Supreme Court had unanimously exer-
cised is discretion in not disturbing the seniority given to such candidates by 
E the S£lecting Authority-Hence, inteiference with that decision in review 
jurisdiction refused-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 142-Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908, 0. 47 R. 1. 
An advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of 
Junior Engineer for which minimum qualification was prescribed. A num-
F 
her of persons applied pursuant to the advertisement. Out of them the 
respondents (33 persons) did not possess the minimum qualification on 
the date of submission of application. However, on the date of interview 
the respondents had acquired the minimum qualification. The respon-
dents were selected along with some other candidates. 
G 
The petitioners/applicants, who were fully qualified to apply for the 
said post according to the aforesaid advertisement and who were selected 
but placed in the Select List below the respondents, filed a WTit petition in 
the High Court contending that the 33 respondents could not have been 
allowed to appear for the interview because they had not acquired the 
H requisite qualification by the prescribed date i.e., the last date for submis-
896 
-
AK SHARMA v. CHANDER SHEKHAR 
897 
sion of application. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the A 
petition. The Division Bench held that the 33 respondents could not have 
been to appear in the interview for the reason that they had not acquired 
the requisite qualification by the prescribed date. The Division Bench, 
however, did not set aside the appointment of the 33 respondents but 
directed that they should be treated as juniors to all those selected persons B 
who were fully qualified by the prescribed date. Thus the respondents who 
were not qualified by the prescribed were date treated as juniors en bloc 
to the candidates who were fully qualified by the prescribed date and were 
selected. 
Being aggrieved the 33 respondents filed an appeal before this Court C 
which was heard by a Bench of three Judges. The majority held that 
allowing the said 33 respondents to appear for the interview was not 
impermissible. The majority further held that by allowing the said 33 
respondents to appear for the interview, "the recruiting authority was able 
to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest". But D 
the minority held that the 33 respondents, who were not qualified on the 
last date of submission of the application but had required the requisite 
before the date of interview, could not have been allowed to appear for the 
interview. However, by an unanimous opinion, the seniority of the said 33 
respondents (given by the Selecting Authority) was not disturbed with the · 
result that the appeal preferred by the 33 respondent was allowed and the E 
judgment of the Division was set aside. Being aggrieved the petitioners/ap-
plicants preferred the present review petition. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. 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. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent 
F 
to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or 
notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a repre- G 
sentation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such 
representation. It cannot act contrary to it.. The reasoning in the majority 
opinion inAshok Kumar Sharma's case that by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.