Supreme Court: Confession Without Corroboration Cannot Form the Basis of Conviction  ||  SC: Higher Land Acquisition Compensation to Some Owners Cannot Invalidate Awards to Others  ||  SC: Prior Written Demand is Not Mandatory For an Industrial Dispute to Exist or be Referred  ||  SC: Complaint U/S 175(4) BNSS Against a Public Servant Must Meet the Conditions of Section 175(3)  ||  P&H HC: Customary Restrictions Can't Stop Widow From Alienating Non-Ancestral Property  ||  Delhi High Court: SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Directive on Written Arrest Grounds Applies Prospectively  ||  MP HC: MPPSC Cannot Reject Doctors For PG Additional Registration Not Mentioned in the Advertisement  ||  Supreme Court: Registered Sale Deed Carries Strong Presumption of Genuineness  ||  SC: Registry Cannot Intrude Into Judiciary’s Exclusive Domain By Questioning Why a Party is Impleaded  ||  Calcutta HC: Third-Party Suits in a Deity’s Name are Allowed Only When The Sebait Loses Authority    

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