Supreme Court: In an appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court rejected claims of the appellants for recruitment on the posts of Village Development Officers, the division bench of Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah*, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgment said that none of the appellants can be said to have been Ex-servicemen at the time of the advertisement, as they were still in service. Further, the advertisement clearly specified that the essential qualification was a Course of Computer Concept Certificate, however, the appellants, despite the opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, failed to do so. Thus, they are not eligible for the posts of Village Development Officers
Background:
The appellants were serving in the Armed Forces in various capacities. An advertisement was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (‘Commission’) for recruitment to the post of Village Development Officer. The registration for applications commenced in 2016. The appellants applied in the category of Ex-Servicemen after obtaining No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) from the employer. Initially, their result was withheld for various reasons but ultimately, they were issued appointment letters in 2019, on temporary basis.
The Court said that there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court that calls for interference. Further, it reiterated that the basic question on eligibility has to be determined based on the cut-off date/point of time which stands crystalized by the date of the advertisement itself, being the last date of submission of application forms, unless extended by the authority concerned.
The Court after perusing the relevant rules and even the clarification to the advertisement, noted that none of the appellants can be said to have been Ex-servicemen at the time of the advertisement in question, as, they were still in service. The appellants cannot be deemed to be Ex-servicemen from a prospective date, despite being in actual service on the relevant date. There is no concept of serving personnel being deemed Ex-Servicemen, and it is not proper to hold or interpret otherwise, as it would be unjust to a large number of others similarly placed as the appellants, who were not Ex-Servicemen as on the date of advertisement but came under the category later but did not apply at the relevant time.
The Bench took note of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58, wherein it was held that many candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement and granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. The Court said that even if a certification is given to a person indicating a prospective date till his employment, circumstances could intercede between the date of such certificate and the prospective date of retirement/resignation/relieving indicated therein. If for any reason there is a proceeding/charge pending against the persons concerned and there are circumstances for which the person cannot be relieved from his post till conclusion of such proceeding, such date indicated in the certificate cannot be taken as the date of being finally and relieved from service. However, in the instant situation, such date is also prospective and much later to the date on which the applications were invited and even till the last date of submission of the application forms. Thus, on this count alone, the appellants’ claim of a right to consideration under the Ex-Servicemen category fails.
Further, the Court said that the advertisement clearly specified the essential qualification was a Course of Computer Concept Certificate, however, the appellants, despite the opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, failed to do so.
Thus, the Court upheld the impugned judgment and order. However, it directed that any payments made to the appellants for the period they have actually worked as Village Development Officers will not be recovered.
[Sudhir Singh v State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1394, decided on 30-10-2023]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Buy Constitution of India HERE
