Supreme Court: State Must Be Impleaded When Relief is Sought From Public Exchequer  ||  SC: Student Fees Cannot Be Increased Mid-Course Except in Exceptional Circumstances  ||  Supreme Court: ED's Delay in Sending Arrest Order Does Not By Itself Invalidate Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Appeal Limitation Runs From NCLAT Order Pronouncement, Not Certified Copy Receipt  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Tribunal Has No Supervisory Authority Over Waqf Board  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Aadhaar Fingerprint Comparison to Trace Sreekrishnapuram Murder Culprits  ||  Delhi High Court: Unnatural Death at Police Station Alone Cannot Establish Police Negligence  ||  Orissa High Court: Teacher Scolding Student for Intoxicant Use is Not Suicide Abetment  ||  Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights    

The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan & Anr. - (Supreme Court) (16 Dec 2021)

Candidate has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by recruiting authority

MANU/SC/1271/2021

Service

The Appellants have preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the D.I.G., Munger to take into account the select list forwarded to him on 8th September, 2007, which included the name of the Respondent No.1 (“original writ Petitioner”) and take necessary steps for his appointment as Constable.

As per the advertisement, the applicants were required to submit the photocopies of all the relevant documents/certificates alongwith the application form and the originals were required to be produced at the time of their appointment before the Selection Council. It appears that, original writ petitioner did not produce/submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith his original application. Therefore, in absence of the submission of the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the application, he was not allotted five marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate. 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. Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the Respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate.

In the circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the Appellants to appoint the Respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside and judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is restored. Appeal allowed.

Tags : APPOINTMENT   DIRECTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved