NCLAT: In Absence of Contractual Clause Interest for Delayed Payments Can’t Form Part of OD  ||  NCLAT: Can Correct Inadvertent Typographical Errors in Orders Passed by NCLT under NCLT Rules  ||  NCLAT: To Satisfy Requirement of S.8 Service of Demand Notice on Registered E-Mail of CD Sufficient  ||  Delhi HC Closes Suit by Hamdard Against Baba Ramdev’s ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Remark  ||  Delhi HC: Can Consider Documents Filed with Plaint to Determine ‘Cause of Action’  ||  Sikkim HC: Section 29A as Amended in 2019 is Applicable on All Arb. Proceedings Pending at the Time  ||  AP HC: Preliminary Enquiry Report Loses Its Significance, Once Regular Enquiry is Initiated  ||  SC: Can’t Take Cognizance of Offence Under S.186 IPC on Police Report/Chargesheet  ||  SC: Can Admit Unregistered Agree. to Sell as Evidence to Prove Contract in Specific Performance Suit  ||  SC Directs Reservation of Post of Treasure for Women Lawyers in Gujarat High Court    

Sudhir Singh vs. State Of U.P. - (Supreme Court) (30 Oct 2023)

A candidate has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement

MANU/SC/1190/2023

Service

Present appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court by which their claims for recruitment on the posts of Village Development Officers have been rejected.

It is well-settled that, the 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 scenario, 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. This Court has also examined the relevant rules and even the clarification(s) to the advertisement. In the case at hand, there is no concept of serving personnel being deemed Ex-Servicemen.

The Court, vide its judgment in State of Bihar v Madhu Kant Ranjan, also took the view that ' As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority.

In the above analysis, though the Court is not required to go into the question of equivalence apropos the C.C.C. Certificate, but since contentions thereon were argued, present Court may reiterate that, the advertisement clearly specified the essential qualification was a C.C.C. Certificate. The appellants despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, having failed to do so, nothing survives on this count. The Impugned Judgment is upheld. Appeal dismissed.

Tags :   RECRUITMENT  POST  ELIGIBILITY

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved