SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 30-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 135 : 2023 INSC 960
135
CASE DETAILS
SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7069 of 2023)
OCTOBER 30, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Claims of the appellants for recruitment 
on the posts of Village Development Oﬃ  cers if rightly rejected by High 
Court in view of lack of eligibility of being Ex-Servicemen at the time of 
the advertisement in question.
Service Law – Basic eligibility/qualiﬁ cation – To be adjudged 
as on the last date of submission of application forms, subject to any 
extension of such date:
Held: Basic question on eligibility has to be determined on the basis 
of the cut-oﬀ  date/point of time which stands crystalized by the date of 
the advertisement itself, being the last date of submission of application 
forms, unless extended by the authority concerned – In the present case, 
none of the appellants can be said to have been Ex-Servicemen at the 
time of the advertisement in question, as, undisputedly, they were still in 
service – Relevant rules and even the clariﬁ cation(s) to the advertisement 
do not indicate that the appellants can be deemed Ex-Servicemen from a 
prospective date, despite being in actual service on the relevant date – As 
such, in the case at hand, there is no concept of serving personnel being 
deemed Ex-Servicemen – Also, the advertisement clearly speciﬁ ed a Course 
of Computer Concept as the essential qualiﬁ cation however, the appellants 
despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, failed to do so – 
Impugned judgment upheld. [Paras 14, 15, 17-19] 
Service Law – Certification given to a person indicating a 
prospective date till when he would be in employment, such date 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
indicated if can be taken as the date of being ﬁ nally and actually relieved 
from service:
Held: No – Even if a certiﬁ cation is given to a person indicating a 
prospective date till when he would be in employment, circumstances could 
intercede between the date of such certiﬁ cate and the prospective date of 
retirement/resignation/relieving indicated therein – Illustratively, if for any 
reason there is a proceeding/charge pending against the person(s) concerned 
and/or there are circumstances for which the person cannot be relieved 
from his post till conclusion of such proceedings or otherwise, such date 
indicated in the certiﬁ cate cannot be taken as the date of being ﬁ nally and 
actually relieved from service – However, in the present case, such date is 
also prospective and much later to the date on which the applications were 
invited and even till the last date of submission of the application forms – 
Thus, on this count alone, the appellants’ claim of a right to consideration 
under the Ex-Servicemen category fails. [Para 15]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES 
Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 11 SCC 58 – 
relied on.
Dr M V Nair v Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429: Uttar Pradesh 
Public Service Commission v Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 1994 [1] SCR 
131; Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262: State 
of Gujarat v Arvindkumar T Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545: 2012 [7] SCR 
1072; Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp 
(3) SCC 168: State of Bihar v Madhu Kant Ranjan 2021 SCC OnLine 
SC 1262 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7069 of 
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2022 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in CMW(A) P No.4817 of 2020.
137
Appearances:
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Santosh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Santosh 
Kr. Vishwakarma, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Debashish Mishra, Advs. for the 
Appellants.
Parmanand Pandey, Utkarsh Pandey, Advs. for the respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order passed by the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “High 
Court”) in Civil Misc. Writ (A) Petition No.4817 of 2020 dated 05.03.2022 
(hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) ﬁ led by the appellants 
by which their claims for recruitment on the posts of Village Development 
Oﬃ  cers have been rejected.
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
4. The appellants were serving in the Armed Forces in various 
capacities, at the relevan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.