Fill in the following details to e-mail
To
Cc
Subject
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> <br /> Supreme Court <br /><br /> A candidate has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement<br /><br /> MANU/SC/1190/2023 - (30 Oct 2023)<br /><br /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Sudhir Singh vs. State Of U.P.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE"><strong>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. <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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.<br><br> 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.</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong></strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong>Tags : Recruitment, Post, Eligibility</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <!--<td><strong>Source : <a target="_new" href="http://www.manupatrafast.com/">newsroom.manupatra.com</a></strong></td>--> <td align="left" valign="top"><strong>Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>