NCLAT: Cannot Withhold Income Tax Refund Received by Bank During CIRP In CD's Account  ||  All. HC: With S. 111 of BNS Covering 'Organised Crime' It Appears Gangsters Act has become Redundant  ||  P&H HC: Cannot Allow Changes in Admission Form after Submission  ||  Bom. HC: Findings in Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Relied Upon While Adjudicating Civil Proceedings  ||  P&H HC Directs Jail Authorities to Decide Parole Applications within Four Months  ||  Allahabad HC: Merely Supporting Pakistan Will Not Prima Facie Attract Section 152 of BNS  ||  HP HC Upholds Wife’s Claim of Adverse Possession after Husband’s Death  ||  Patna HC: Maintenance may be Allowed in Disputed Marriages if Relationship Was Socially Accepted  ||  Karnataka HC: State to Respond in 3 Weeks regarding Mandatory Teaching of Kannada  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Unhappy in Marriage is No Proof of Abetment of Suicide    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved