PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/1997 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar
Hon’ble mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Rao
K.S.Bhati, M.K.Singh, Advs. for the appellant
Rajendra Singhvi and A.K.Singh, Advs for the Respondent
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard both sides. In the Advertisement No.1 of 1992
which was issued on 9.6.92 it was stated that the
application form must reach the office of the Zila Parishad,
Dungarpur latest by 5.00 p.m. on 29.6.92. The prescribed
qualifications of B.S.T.C. or its equivalent, recognised by
the State Government. The last paragraph of advertisement
stated that no certificates/marks-sheet will be accepted
after the receipt of application forms in the office.
The respondent did not possess the requisite technical
qualification on 29.6.92 which was the last date for
submitting application. He had appeared for the B.Ed.
examination but the results were not declared on 29.6.97.
The results were declared only on 6.8.92. The interviews
for the advertised posts were held from 1st of September,
1992 onwards.
The respondent was not called for an interview since on
the date of the receipt of his application, he did not
possess any technical qualification. On 1.9.92 he filed a
writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan and obtained an
interim order requiring the appellant to call him for an
interview. Pursuant to this interim order, he was
interviewed and thereafter, on the basis of the directions
which the respondent obtained from the High Court, he was
included in the list of selected candidates. He was
appointed thereafter on a provisional basis subject to the
outcome of this writ petition.
According tot he respondent he has now been confirmed.
The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of
the High Court by this order dated 17.7.95, holding that the
cut-off date for ascertaining the eligibility of the
respondent under the said advertisement was the last date
prescribed for submission of the application i.e. 29.6.92.
On 5.2.96 the services of the respondent were discontinued.
The respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of
the High Court which has been allowed. The present appeal
is from the decision of the Division Bench.
Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which
we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible
for consideration. It is submitted by the respondent before
us that since he has been continued and has now been
confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has
requested that his case should be considered
sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the
appellants have taken the correct stand right from the
beginning. The respondent’s application was not considered
and he was not called for an interview. It was on account
of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that
he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that
his appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition.
One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the
situation in which the respondent find himself. A cut-off
date by which all the requirements relating to
qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an
individual case. There may be other persons who would have
applied had they known that the date of acquiring
qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied
because they did not possesss the requisite qualification on
the prescribed date. Relaxing he prescribed requirements in
the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice
to others.
In the premises, the respondent was not eligible for
consideration. We, therefore, allows the appeal, set aside
the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the writ
petition filed by the respondent. There shall be no order
as to costs.