SC: Menstrual Health is a Fundamental Right under Article 21; Orders Free Sanitary Pads in Schools  ||  Supreme Court: Industrial Court is the Proper Forum to Decide Issues Relating to Contract Labour  ||  Supreme Court: Only Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate  ||  SC: Demolition of Private Property Must Rest on Clear Statutory Grounds and Due Consideration  ||  SC: After Complaint Was Withdrawn, BCI Disciplinary Committee Could Not Penalise Advocate  ||  MP HC: Decree Holder Cannot Defeat Compromise or Initiate Execution by Refusing Debtor’s Cheque  ||  MP HC: Spouse’s Income Cannot Be Clubbed With Public Servant’s for Disproportionate Assets Case  ||  Ker HC: Bar Association is Not Employer & Cannot Form Internal Complaints Committee under POSH Act  ||  SC: Ex-Contract Workers Must Be Preferred When Employers Replace Contract Labour With Regular Staff  ||  SC: Waqf Tribunals Cannot Hear Claims over Properties Not Listed or Registered under Waqf 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