Supreme Court Issues Directions to Speed Up MACT Claims Amid Six-Year Average Pendency  ||  Supreme Court: Sex Selection Practices Continues Due to Preference For Male Children  ||  Supreme Court: Injury From a Fallen Tree is Not a Motor Accident for MACT Claims  ||  Madras HC: Recent Tamil Nadu Elections Reflect Voting Beyond Caste and Community Considerations  ||  Supreme Court: Children Should Not Undergo Psychological Tests in Custody Cases Unless Necessary  ||  Jharkhand HC: Lokayukta Cannot Delegate Core Adjudicatory Powers Even in Case Against Brother  ||  Ker HC: Complainant Can Invoke Presumptions After Proving Transaction, Cheque Execution Convincingly  ||  Supreme Court Cancels SARFAESI Auction Sale After 16 Years Due to a 5-Day Payment Delay  ||  Jhar HC Orders 2-Month Probe Deadline, DGP Monitoring to Overhaul Sexual Violence Response in State  ||  Delhi HC: Social Media Cannot Undermine Judiciary; Intermediaries Must Act Without Court Orders    

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