MILLS DOUGLAS MICHAEL AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 02-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

·' 
MILLS DOUGLAS MICHAEL AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
APRIL 2, 1996 
jS.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, _.T.l.J 
Se1vice Law: 
Ei.:-se1vicen1en (Re-en111/oyn1ent in Central l'ivi/ Se1vices and Posts) 
Rules, 1979 : Rule 6( 4 ), Note I1I a11d Expln. 
A 
B 
c 
Recruit111ent-Acquisition of deen1ed qualification-Relevant date 
j(JJ'-Mininuun educational qualification-Degree of recognised Univer-
sit)-Acquired on or before cut-off date-U11der graduate ex- ser-
viccn1en--Deen1ed to be graduates on con111letion of 15 yea1:'i se11,1ice in 
Anned Forces-Held : relevant date for acquisitio11 of deemed q11alificatio11 D 
by e..x-servicen1cn was last date for receipt of application and not cut-off 
date--Deen1ed qualification could not be acquired within one year jinn1 
closing date on con1pletion of assignn1e11t in Anned Forces-Provision had 
no co-relationship with deenied qualification on conipletion of 15 yea1:'i 
defence seroice. 
The appellant had applied for the post of Inspector of Central 
Excise, lncome-t.ax etc. The advertisement for the posts in 11uestion had 
prescribed a degree of a reG/)gnised University as the minimum education-
E 
al qualification which was to be acc1uired before the cut·ofT date. However, 
ex·servicenien, \\1ho \\'ere not graduates, were deemed to be graduates on F 
completion of 15 years of sen'ice in the Ar1ned Forces as per Rule 6(4) of 
the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) 
Rules, 1979. After scrutiny of application a written examination was held 
. in which the appellant came out successful. The interview was held there-
after and the appellant \\'as declared selected under ex-servicenian 11uota 
for the post of Inspector of Central Excise and the Selection List was duly G 
published. While the appellant was waiting to receive appointment letter, 
+ 
he was served with a letter informing that his selection had ~en cancelled 
on the ground that he had not completed 15 years of service in Armed 
Forces as on the cut-oil date which was crucial for educational qualifica· 
lion. The appellant challenged the afore-said cancellation before the H 
1077 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the 
Tribunal's judgment the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
B 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the cut- off date had 
no application to aClfUiring: the deemed c1ualification afler con1pletion of 
15 years of service in the Armed Forces; that Rule 6(4) of the Rules read 
nith Note Ill and the Explanation thereto clearly specified that the deemed 
qualification would be acquired ll'ithin one year from the closing date on 
completion of his assignment in the Armed Forces; and that the Tribunal 
wholly erred in law in applying the cut-off date even for the purpose of the 
deemed qualification on completion of 15 years of service in the Armed 
C 
Forces. 
Alloning the appeal, this Court 
HELD :. 1.1. The advertisement clearly states that minimum 
qualification for the post in question is a degree of recognised University 
D or its equivalent and those candidates who either have not appeared at the 
degree examination or whose result has been withheld or not declared, they 
must pass the degree before the cut-off date. The cut-off date has no 
application for acquiring dee1ned qualification of a graduate in case of 
ex-servicemen on completion of 15 years of service in the Armed Forces. 
E Therefore, it must be held that a candidate who is not a graduate but is 
an ex-serviceman must complete 15 years of service by the last date of 
receipt of application for being eligible to be considere<i for the recruit-
ment to the post of Inspectors in Central Excise and Income-tax etc. 
• 
[1082-H, 1083-A-B-D] 
F 
Rckha Clumuvedi v. Univmity of Rajusllwn & On·., [1993] Supp. 3 
G 
sec 168, relied on. 
1.2. The Tribunal erred in law in relying upon Note III and Explana-
tion thereto of Rule 6(4) of Ex-servicemen (Re-en1ployn1ent in Central Civil 
Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 to hold that the eligibility 11ualification 
under the deen1ed provision could be acquired within one year from the 
closing date on completion of assignn1ent. Note III as well as Explanation 
thereto is in re.lation to the eligibility of a person to apply for re-employ-
ment one year before the completion of specified term of enga{ernent. The 
said provision has no co-relationship with the deented qualif

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