Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1404 (ALL)

RAJ KUMAR v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

2003-07-04

B.S.CHAUHAN, D.P.GUPTA

body2003
B. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioners in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 1/2003-2004, issued by the u. P. Public Service Commission. ( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 21st/27th June, 2003 Public service Commission advertised the vacancies of Medical Officers, prescribing the eligibility that the person applying must have the internship completed by the last date of submitting the application Form, for what, petitioners had not completed their internship till the last date of submitting the Application Forms. Hence this petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as there has been irregularities in holding the examination and completing the internship by the authorities concerned, and it was beyond control of the petitioners, they should not suffer for no fault of theirs. Therefore, this court should issue direction to the respondent to consider their candidatures. ( 4 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel has opposed this submission vehemently contending that prescribing the eligibility for a particular post is a legislative question and the Court does not have power to issue direction for contravention of the said policy, and thus, the Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners. ( 5 ) IN Y. V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors. , AIR 1983 SC 852 ; AA, Calton v. Director of Education and Anr. , AIR 1983 SC 1143 ; P. Gyaneshwar Rao and Ors. v. State of andhra Pradesh and Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 2068 and P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , AIR 1990 SC 405 ; the Honble Supreme Court has taken the view that candidates have to be assessed for selection as per the eligibility criteria existing on the date of advertisement of vacancies for tie reason that selection process starts with advertisement and all those persons who apply in response to the same, would be eligible to be considered. ( 6 ) ALL the judgments, referred to above, have been given by the two Honble Judges Bench except P. Mahendran (supra), which was given by the Bench of three Honble Judges. ( 7 ) THE Three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in Dr. M. V. Nair v. Union of India and Ors. ( 6 ) ALL the judgments, referred to above, have been given by the two Honble Judges Bench except P. Mahendran (supra), which was given by the Bench of three Honble Judges. ( 7 ) THE Three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in Dr. M. V. Nair v. Union of India and Ors. , (1993)2 SCC 429 ; without taking note of P. Mahendran (supra), held as under : "it is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies, such a date. " ( 8 ) IN U. P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana, (1994)2 SCC 723 , the Honble Supreme Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications by the Commission though that was a case where result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. The Honble Supreme Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of the applications, a candidate, whose result has not been declared upto the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible. ( 9 ) IN State of M. P. and Ors. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Ors. , (1994) 6 SCC 151 , the Apex court examined a case where during process of selection, the Rules were amended but subsequently the Commission/state abandoned the selection process and advertised vacancies afresh to be filled up in accordance with the amendment. The Honblc Supreme Court upheld the action of the State on the ground that the persons, who had applied earlier, had not acquired any vested right, therefore, the States action was justified. ( 10 ) IN Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706; the honble Supreme Court held : "it is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules. " ( 11 ) IN State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors. , (1997) 10 SCC 419 , the Honble Supreme Court, while considering the case for promotion, held that the eligibility for promotion must be as in the year when the vacancies arose, but that was not a case of direct recruitment. ( 12 ) IN Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chandra Shekhar and Ors. , (1997)4 SCC 18 , the Honble supreme Court held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be adjudged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established proposition of law. ( 13 ) IN Dr. Ramulu and Anr. v. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao and Ors. , AIR 1997 SC 1803 , the honble Apex Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments and held that if the Rules have been amended, person has a right to be considered as per the amended Rules unless his existing rights prior to the amendment have specifically been saved and for the reason that he cannot claim to have acquired any vested right for being considered in accordance with the Rules existing prior to the amendment. ( 14 ) IN Utkal University etc. v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Ors. , AIR 1999 SC 943 ; and gopal Krishna Rath v. M. A. A. Baig, AIR 1999 SC 2093 , the Honblc Supreme Court again reiterated that the eligibility is to be assessed as per the Rules existing on the last date of submission of the applications. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, as it is settled legal proposition that the candidate must possess requisite qualification/eligibility on the last date of submission of the Application Form, we see no ground to interfere. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.