Recruitment Process -Last Date To Fulfil Eligibility Criteria Is Last Date To Submit Applications, In The Absence Of Any Specific Rule: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that where there is an absence of any specific rule or prescription, the last day for fulfilling eligibility is the last date of submission of the application. The Court made the observation while refusing the benefit of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation to candidates of Civil Service Examination 2022 who did not upload the income and asset certificate...
The Supreme Court emphasized that where there is an absence of any specific rule or prescription, the last day for fulfilling eligibility is the last date of submission of the application. The Court made the observation while refusing the benefit of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation to candidates of Civil Service Examination 2022 who did not upload the income and asset certificate in the prescribed form before the stipulated cut-off date.
The Supreme Court acknowledged a conflict between a 3-judge bench decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar(1997) 4 SCC 18 and Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & (2016) 4 SCC 754. However, the Court reiterated the principle laid down by a 3-judge bench decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma’s case and concluded that it is bound by it.
The Court referred to the observation made in Ashok Kumar Sharma’s case stating “A person who acquires the prescribed qualification after such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it.
One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of the interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself.”
A bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was deciding the case of the petitioners who challenged UPSC's decision to treat them as General category candidates post-results. The petitioners contended that this action was arbitrary and violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court's ruling centered on the interpretation of CSE Rules, 2022, and the determination of the last date for fulfilling eligibility.
The Court referred to several previous cases to establish a coherent and consistent approach to eligibility criteria. In the case of Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262, it was held that the possession of the requisite educational qualification is mandatory and should not be uncertain. It added “ If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date to determine the candidates' eligibility must, therefore, be fixed.”
Moreover, the court drew attention to the case of Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar and (2003) 9 SCC 519 which reiterated the same principle that In the absence of a specific rule or date in the advertisement, the last date for applying should be the reference point for eligibility determination.
In the case at hand, the Supreme Court pointed out that clear rules existed in the form of CSE-2022, which provided the cut-off date. Referring to A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990)2 SCC 669, the court stressed that the determination of eligibility cannot be left uncertain until the final stages of selection, as this would create ambiguity and confusion. This view was consistent with the case.
The Court further emphasized that if rules stipulate the last date for meeting eligibility requirements, any relaxation would be prejudicial to non-applicants who refrained from applying due to a lack of eligibility. Relaxations would then be selective and could lead to discrimination, as established in the case of Yogesh Kumar v. GNCTD, (2003) 3 SCC 548.
The court underlined that Rule 13 in the present case required candidates to upload their eligibility certificates by 15.07.2022. The rule explicitly stated that delayed submissions of the required documents would not be allowed. This further affirmed the necessity of adhering to the stipulated deadlines for meeting eligibility criteria.
This default date has been recognized judicially. In the present case, the last date for application submission was prescribed as the cut-off in the rules, and the court found no case for violation of Article 14 (equality before law).
Case title: Divya v. Union of India| Vimlok Tiwari v. UPSC| Ved Prakash Singh v. UPSC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 879
For petitioners: AOR Preetika Dwivedi(for Divya) and Advocate Parmeshwar along with AOR Tanya Shree(Vimlok Tiwari v. UOI)