Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC  ||  Delhi High Court: Elective Surgery Does Not Bar Grant of Interim Bail on Medical Grounds  ||  Delhi HC: Consensual Romance With Minor Nearing 18 May be Considered For Bail in POCSO Case  ||  Delhi HC: Not Named In FIR Doesn’t Matter If Financial Links Show Active Role in NDPS Offence  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Rape is an Affront to Womanhood and a Brutal Violation of The Right To Life  ||  Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved