SHANKAR K. MANDAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 17-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHANK.ARK. MANDAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BI HAR AND ORS. 
APRIL 17, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Appointment of teachers-Termination on ground of illegality in 
C appointments-Challenge to-High Court directed State to make appointment 
afresh by giving opportunity to the teachers removed from service and relaxing 
the age limit in appropriate cases-Affirmed by Supreme Court-Non-
se/ection of some of the candidates on ground of over age-Challenged by 
way of Writ petition-Dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held: cut-
D off date by reference to which eligibility is determined would either be the 
date of appointment as per service rules or the date mentioned in the 
advertisement for recruitment or the last date of receipt of the app/ication-
Authority to determine eligibility of appellants accordingly with regard to 
age liti1it. 
E 
Practice and Procedure: 
Non-consideration of pleas by the Court-Wrong recording of 
submission by the High Court-Remedy of-Held: it is not open to the parties 
to take such pleas before the Supreme Court-Only course open is calling 
attention of the Judge who made such recording or by filing a proper 
F application for Review/clarification. 
G 
Words & Phrases: 
'wrong recording of the stands' and 'non consideration of submission'-
Meaning of 
Respondent-State had made appointment of2000 primary teachers. Their 
appointments were challenged on the ground of illegality committed in 
appointments. Later, their services were terminated. Writ petitions filed by 
the aggrieved teachers were disposed of by the High Court directing the State 
H to make appointments afresh considering applications from the writ petitioners 
796 
SHANKAR K. MANDAL v. STA TE 
797 
and other teachers removed from service, allowing age relaxation to such A 
candidates. On appeal, this Court affirmed the Judgment of the High Court 
and issued directions to the State that while making fresh selection 
disqualification due to altered recruitment rules should not be imposed on 
such candidates. State made fresh selection. Some of the unsuccessful 
candidates filed writ petitions. Dismissing the writ petitions, High Court 
directed them to file representations for consideration by the authorities. Hence B 
the present appeal and the connected appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that in view of the direction given by 
the Supreme Court, a candidate who was not overaged on the date of his initial 
appointment was to be considered for appointment in the fresh selection; that C 
the High Court did not consider this to determine their eligibility; and that 
their submissions with regard to overage were wrongly recorded and some of 
their pleas were not considered by the High Court. 
On behalf of the respondent-State, it was submitted that since appellants 
having made a concession before the High Court that they were over-aged on D 
the date of appointment, it was not open for them to take a different stand. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is true that there was concession before the Hilb Court 
that appellants were over aged on the date of initial appointment. But there E 
was no conc~ssion that they were over aged at the time of making the 
application. No definite material was placed before the High Court and also 
before this Court to give a definite finding on the aspect of age limit. 
[801-F, G[ 
1.2. The effect of any prescription/non-prescription of age limit has been F 
considered by this Court in several cases, and the principles enunciated are 
as follows: 
(1) 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; 
(2) If there is no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date 
shall be as appointed for the purpose in advertisement calling for 
applications; and 
G 
(3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria H 
798 
SUPREMF COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 3 S.C.R. 
._,A 
shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which 
the applications were to be received by the competent authority. 
1801-G, H; 802-A-CI 
·, 
B 
The authority has to decide about applicability of either of these three 
conditions as to the facts of the given case. Jn the absence of definite material, 
the authorities are directed to take a decision within a period of four months 
to determine as to whether

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