ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 23-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

- " 
ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Appointment-Cut-off date for possession of requisite 
educational qualification-Held-In absence of any rule or any specific date 
having been fixed in advertisement, it would be last date for filing of C 
application-It was more so as possession of educational qualification was 
mandatory, and could not be uncertain. 
Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915-Sections 5, 6 and 17-Power of 
Visitor-Held-Express power has been conferred upon Visitor to annul any 
proceeding of University, only condition being that it should be not in D 
conformity with statutes or ordinances-Selection process of lecturer falls 
within its scope, especially as it had to conform to Articles 14 and 16 of 
Constitution of India, 1950 and terms of Act or statute or ordinances governing 
the field-Ordinarily, principle of natural justice should be followed, but not 
in case where no prejudice is shown, and following them would be a futile 
exercise-On facts, held, as selection of lecturer was illegal since he was not E 
qualified on cut off date, it would have been futile for Visitor to give him 
opportunity of being heard-Court could not invoke its equity jurisdiction 
as Articles I 4 and 16 of the Constitution, and statutory rules were not 
complied with-It was not a case appointment being irregular, but one of its 
being non est in eye of law and a nullity. 
p 
Appellant applied for the post of lecturer in the Department of Basic 
Principles of Banaras Hindu University. On the day of his application, he had 
not completed his M.D. in Sharir Kriya, an essential qualification prescribed 
in advertisement for the above post. However, along with his application he 
enclosed a certificate issued by Professor and Head of the Department of Basic G 
Principles stating that he was admitted for the said degree. He was allowed to 
appear before the Selection Committee and on being offered an appointment, 
joined the said post. In the meanwhile, however, he had passed the examination 
of aforesaid degree. 
95 
H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Against the appointment of appellant, respondent No.4 mo\'ed the 
President of India in his capacity of the 'Visitor' of the said University. As 
the 'Visitor' was of the opinion that the selection process was illegal, the 
appointment of the appellant was annulled by him in exercise orthe power 
conferred upon him under Section 5(7) of the Banaras Hindu Universi1ty Act, 
B 1915. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition before th1~ High 
Court, but it was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that (i) there was no cut-off date specified in the 
advertisement and the statute or statutory rules were also silent in regard to 
the question as to whether the Selection Committee could allow him to take 
C part in the selection process as he had completed his M.D. before hie was 
considered therefor (ii) the jurisdiction of the Visitor being limited under 
Section 5(2) of the Act, new appointment could not have formed subject-matter 
of his decision (iii) as he was confirmed in the post of lecturer, it was oblig.atory 
on the part of the Visitor to give an opportunity of hearing to the appdlant 
(iv) in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it was obligatory o:n the 
D part of the High Court in equity to refuse to exercise its discretionary 
jurisdiction (v) the University took a definite stand before the High Court that 
he was selected in terms of the prevailing practice. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD 1.1. Possession of requisite educational qualification is 
mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to 
prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible 
candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the 
candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or :my 
F specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, would 
be the last date for filing the application. (Para 18] (107-GI 
G 
H 
1.2. Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the requisite 
qualification as on the said cut-off date. He was, therefore, not eligible therefor. 
(Para 14] (106-AJ 
Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr., (1997) 4 
sec 18, followed. 
Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. etc. v. Chander Shekher and A

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