Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2891 (ALL)

Mohit Singh Tonwar v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-12-19

V.K.SHUKLA

body2011
V.K.Shukla, J;- Petitioner has rushed to this Court with request that his representation dated 18.10.2011 be directed to be decided. Petitioner was an candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police and Platoon Commander to P.A.C. Examination 2011. Last date of moving application was 25.06.2011. This accepted position is that by the said date result of the petitioner has not been declared and in view of this petitioner's candidature has not been entertained. Petitioner has rushed to this Court contending therein that once he has passed his graduation on 01.08.2011 then in all eventuality his candidature ought to have been accepted. In the present case accepted position is that petitioner has not obtained his Graduation Degree by the last date fixed i.e. 25.06.2011 and accepted position is that their result has been declared subsequent to the last date. Petitioner has rushed to this Court contending therein that as petitioner has already undertaken examination and in the matter of declaration of the result, petitioner has no role to play, as such petitioner should not be made to suffer, in this background petitioner has requested that his candidature be accepted and he may be permitted to undertake examination in question. Request which has been made by the petitioner, has been opposed by the learned Standing counsel by contending that as by last date fixed result of the petitioner has not been declared, as such no relief or reprieve can be given to the petitioner. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case that as per the advertisement last date of filling up of the application forms was 25.06.2011 by 5 p.m. and it was clearly and categorically mentioned therein that thereafter no application forms can be accepted, thus, closing date of receiving applications forms was 25.06.2011. This is accepted position that by the last date fixed i.e. 25.06.2011, petitioner was not having to his credit Graduation Degree and said Graduation degree has been obtained by them subsequent to the same. This Court in the case of Sangam Lal Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nil of 1990) decided on 8th March, 1990 and Rakesh Kumar Khare Vs. U.P.S.E.C (Civil Misc. This Court in the case of Sangam Lal Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nil of 1990) decided on 8th March, 1990 and Rakesh Kumar Khare Vs. U.P.S.E.C (Civil Misc. Writ Petition 4291 of 1992), decided 26.03.1992 has taken the view that in case candidate has appeared in the examination then declaration of the result would relate back to the date of examination. Said judgment do not lay down good law and principle stated in said judgment has already been considered and disapproved and view has been that eligibility criteria must be fulfilled on the relevant date i.e. when there is no other date mentioned in the advertisement or the Rules, the last date of application is to be accepted as cut off date. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Raman Kumar Pandey Vs. U.P.S.E.S.C, reported in 1995 ESC (1) 74 has already answered the question, keeping in view that Hon'ble Apex Court has not approved the judgement of Sangam Lal Pandey(supra), in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Alpana 1994(1)JT 94 and in paragraph 12 finally concluded by observing the principle that declaration of result relates back to examination to which it relates is no more valid. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (4) SCC 54 , has exhaustively dealt with the issue as to what would be the cut off date for determining eligibility criteria. The cut off date should be mentioned, either in Advertisement or in the Rules and in the absence of both, the last date mentioned in the advertisement, for filling up application form has to be considered as cut off date. Possession of requisite qualification is mandatory and same cannot be permitted to remain uncertain. If uncertainly is allowed to prevail employer would be flooded with application of ineligible candidates. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1993 (2) SCC 429 has taken the the view that 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. Again Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs. Again Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and another 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706 has taken the view that 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 date alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the Rules. Again Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Chander Shekhar and another reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 has taken the view 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. View to the similar effect has again been reiterated in the case of Dolly Chandra Vs. Chairman 2005(9) SCC 799; Diptimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa 2008 (10) SCC 687 that eligibility is to be assessed as the Rules existing on the last date of submission of application. On the parameter of the aforesaid provisions quoted above, once last date of receiving application has been clearly provided for as 25.06.2011 by 5pm and at that time petitioner was not at all fulfilling requisite eligibility criteria then this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner by issuing direction to accept his candidature. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.