STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 01-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT 
AUGUST 1, 1997 
B 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Eligibility-Cut-off date-Held, a cut-off date by which all the require-
ments relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an 
C individual case-It may cause injustice to others-Appointment obtained 
under interim orders, being subject to the outcome of the writ petition, was 
rightly discontinued on dismissal of the writ petition. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5313 of 
D 1997. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.96 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 359 of 1996. 
K.S. Bhati and M.K. siilgh for the Appellant 
_ Rajendra Singhvi and A.K. Singh for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
F 
Heard 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 for the post required, inter alia practical/technical 
qualifications of B.S.T.C. or its equivalent, recognised by the State Govern-
G ment. The last paragraph of the advertisement stated that no certifi-
cates/marks-sheet will be accepted after the receipt of application forms in 
the office. 
The respondent did not possess the requisite technical qualification 
on 29.6.92 which was the last date for submitting application. He had 
H appeared for the B.Ed. examination but the results were not declared on 
224 
STATE v. H.K BHATT 
225 
29.6.92. The results were declared only on 6.8.92. The interviews for the A 
advertised posts were held from 1st of September, 1992 onwards. 
The 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 B 
obtained an interim order requiring the appellant to call him for an 
interview. Pursuant to this interim order, he .was interviewed and there-
after, 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. According to the respondent he has now been confirmed. 
C 
The Writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court 
by his 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. On 5.2.96 the D 
services of the respondent were discontinued. The 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 Bench. 
Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have 
rekrred lo above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is E 
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 F 
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. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the 
situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all G 
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 possess the 
requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed 
requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice H 
226 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A to others. 
B 
· In the premises, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. 
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High 
Court and dismiss the writ petition 

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