Can't Protect Illegal Appointment: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea By Asst Prof Candidate Whose Appointment Was Cancelled Over Wrong PhD Completion Date
Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed by a candidate whose appointment was cancelled by Malviya National Institute of Technology (“MNIT”) after it was found that he incorrectly submitted the date of his Ph.D completion, and in fact was not possessing the qualification on the last date of application submission.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also opined that there could not be any waiver or relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless the power of such relaxation was duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Furthermore, exercise of such power had to be done with vide publicity by indicating in the advertisement so that potential beneficiaries get the opportunity to apply and compete.
“A large number of such candidates may not have applied adhering to the statutory rules, terms and conditions of the advertisement and considering themselves to be ineligible. There is no obligation on the part of the Court to protect an illegal appointment, the extra-ordinary power of this Court cannot be utilized in such like matters and the same can be used only in appropriate cases to advance the cause of justice so that none can defeat the rights of others and create arbitrariness.”
The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor at MNIT for which the candidates were required to possess Ph.D by the last date of application submission. The petitioner wrongly declared in his application form that he possessed the degree of Ph.D when in actuality, he obtained the degree after the application form was closed.
Based on this false declaration, the petitioner was able to attain appointment, however, when the same was revealed, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice followed by cancellation of his appointment.
The counsel for the petitioner argued for waiver of the requirement of Ph.D degree. It was argued that as per the Rules on recruitment issued by the Ministry of Human Resources, relaxation could be granted to such candidates having a good number of publications.
On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of MNIT that despite being aware of the requirement of having stipulated qualification on the last day of application submission, the petitioner mis-represented himself to be possessing the Ph.D degree while applying for the post. Despite not being eligible to apply, the petitioner misled the authorities by providing incorrect information.
It was held that since the appointment was secured owing to such misrepresentation the appointment was rightly cancelled.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr., and highlighted that the case ruled that,
“a person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason i.e. appointment would be contrary to the statutory Rules and would therefore, be void in law. It has also been held that ineligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such person would amount to serious illegality. It has been held by the Apex Court that such person cannot approach the Court for any relief for the reason that he does not have the right, which can be enforced through the Court.”
The Court also observed that even in the appointment letter of the petitioner, it was mentioned that any if any information provided by the candidate was found to be incorrect, the authority had the right to withdraw or cancel the appointment.
Furthermore, on the question of granting waiver or relaxation to the petitioner, the Court stated that like petitioner, there might have been many others who were not eligible to apply for the post owing to their adherence to the advertisement, and thus granting any relief to the petitioner would violate Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
The Court referred to the Apex Court ruling in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan which held that,
“It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement…This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete.”
In this background, it was opined that since there was no reference of relaxation in the rules or the advertisement, other similarly situated people who were lacking eligibility on the last date of application submission failed to apply as they were treated as 'ineligible'. Hence, granting relaxation to the petitioner of any condition of the advertisement, without publication, would violate Article 14 and 16.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Dr. Sabyasachi Swain v Malviya National Institute of Technology & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 106