Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6116 OF 2013

Rakesh Kumar Sharma                                                 …Appellant

Versus

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                                     …Respondents

J U D G M E N T   

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment  

and order dated 13.2.2013, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New  

Delhi  allowing  the  Writ  Petition  No.5150  of  2012  filed  by  the  

respondents  against  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal,  New Delhi  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  

‘Tribunal’)  dated  3.1.2012  passed  in  O.A.  No.  3420/2010,  

whereunder the Tribunal quashed the show cause notice/order passed  

by respondent no.1 terminating the services of the appellant for not

Page 2

possessing the requisite eligibility as on the last date of submission of  

applications.  

2. Facts  and  circumstances  giving  rise  to  this  appeal  are  that:

A. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board – Respondent no.3  

being a recruitment agency issued an advertisement dated 12.10.2007  

inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate  

Teachers  (hereinafter  called  ‘TGT’)  for  various  courses  including  

TGT (Sanskrit).  The last date for submission of the application was  

29.10.2007.

B. A  pre-requisite  qualification  for  the  post  was  that  of  B.Ed.  

Though he had appeared in the B.Ed examination prior to submission  

of the application for TGT (Sanskrit), the result however was declared  

only  on 28.1.2008.   He participated  in  the  selection  process  as  he  

made a representation that he had acquired the requisite eligibility.  

The appointment letter  dated 19.6.2009 was issued making it  clear  

that the appointment was  temporary and on provisional basis for  

two years and further subject to verification of character,  antecedents  

and educational qualification etc. by the Deputy Director Education,  

New  Delhi  (hereinafter  called  ‘DDE’).   The  appellant  joined  the  

2

Page 3

service as TGT (Sanskrit)  on 26.6.2009.  The DDE issued a show  

cause notice dated 21.9.2010 to the appellant to show cause why his  

services should not be terminated as he was awarded the B.Ed degree  

only on 28.1.2008 which was much after the cut-off date which was  

29.10.2007.

C. In clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment it was made  

clear that if at any stage it is found that any information/declaration  

and submission given by a candidate was false or that any information  

had  been  concealed/misrepresented,  the  appointment  would  be  

terminated and further the candidate would be liable to be proceeded  

against in the matter.

D. The appellant submitted the reply to the said show cause notice  

stating that  subsequent to his joining the post he had submitted the  

copies  of  the  documents  including  marks  sheet  of  B.Ed  for  

verification and he possessed the eligibility and there was no question  

of  any  concealment/misrepresentation  on  his  part.   As  the  reply  

submitted  by  the  appellant  was  found  to  be  unsatisfactory,  the  

competent  authority  DDE  passed  an  order  dated  5.10.2010  

terminating the services of the appellant.  The order recites that the  

employment had been obtained by  misrepresentation since he was  

3

Page 4

ineligible,  not  being  possessed  of  the  educational  qualification  of  

B.Ed  on  the  last  date  of  submission  of  the  application.   The  

information furnished by him was found to be false and as per clause  

11 of the terms of appointment as he had made a false representation.  

His services were accordingly liable to be terminated.

E. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the show cause as well as  

the  said  order  of  termination  by  filing  O.A.  No.3420  of  2010  on  

various  grounds  before  the  Tribunal,  which  was  allowed  vide  

judgment  and  order  dated  3.1.2012  quashing  the  said  show  cause  

notice and granting all consequential benefits to the appellant.   

F. Aggrieved, the respondents, Govt. of NCT of Delhi challenged  

the same before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi by filing Writ  

Petition No.5150 of 2012.  When the matter came up for hearing on  

13.2.2013, the High Court allowed the writ petition placing reliance  

on the judgment and order passed in connected Writ Petition No.4798  

of 2012 basically on the ground that the appellant did not possess the  

requisite eligibility in qualification on the prescribed date.

Hence, this appeal.

4

Page 5

3. We have heard S/Shri Rajat Aneja, Aruneshwar Gupta, Bharat  

Singh, Sanjiv Sen, learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal as  

well  as  in  other  connected  appeals  and  Shri  Rakesh  K.  Khanna,  

learned ASG for the respondents and perused the record.

4. The  facts  are  not  in  dispute.   As  per  the  advertisement,  

applications  had  to  be  submitted  by  29.10.2007  and  the  appellant  

made a representation that he had obtained the B.Ed degree  but could  

not  submit  a  copy  of  the  marks  sheet  or  Degree  certificate.   The  

appointment letter dated 19.6.2009 was temporary/provisional, subject  

to  verification  of  various  aspects  including  that  of  educational  

qualification.   The appellant  was  permitted  to  join services  on the  

basis of provisional appointment letter and therefore, the sole question  

involved herein is whether the appellant could claim any relief, if for  

one reason or the other his result had not been declared upto the last  

date of the submission of the application form.

5. A three Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors.  

v. Surinder Kumar & Ors.,  AIR 1992 SC 1593 dealt with a case  

where regular appointment had not been made.  The court held that  

unless  a  person holds  the post  permanently,  his  services  would be  

governed by the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment  

5

Page 6

letter  and  the  court  must  in  all  circumstances  enforce  the  terms  

specifically stated therein.   

6. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the  

selection  process  commences  on  the  date  when  applications  are  

invited.   Any person eligible on the last  date of  submission of  the  

application  has  a  right  to  be  considered  against  the  said  vacancy  

provided he fulfils the requisite qualification.

7. In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr.  

v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723, this 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.  That too was a case where the result of a candidate was  

declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications.  

This 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 applications, therefore, a candidate, whose  

result  has  not  been  declared  upto  the  last  date  of  submission  of  

applications, would not be eligible.

6

Page 7

8. A three Judge Bench of this Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union  

of India & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 429, 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.”        (Emphasis added)

9. In  Smt.  Harpal  Kaur  Chahal  v.  Director,  Punjab  

Instructions, Punjab & Anr., 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706, this 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.”  

         (Emphasis added)

10. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan,  

1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 held:  

“The contention that the required qualifications of   the candidates should be examined with reference   to the date of selection and not with reference to   the last date for making applications has only to   be stated to be rejected.  The date of selection is   invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge   of such date the candidates who apply for the posts   would  be  unable  to  state  whether  they  are   qualified for the posts in question or not, if they   are  yet  to  acquire  the qualifications.  Unless  the   

7

Page 8

advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference   to  which  the  qualifications  are  to  be  judged,   whether the said date is of selection or otherwise,   it would not be possible for the candidates who do   not  possess  the  requisite  qualifications  in   praesenti even to make applications for the posts.   The  uncertainty  of  the  date  may  also  lead  to  a   contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates   who  do  not  have  the  qualifications  in  praesenti   and  are  likely  to  acquire  them  at  an  uncertain   future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling   the  number  of  applications.  But  a  still  worse   consequence may follow, in that it may leave open   a  scope  for  malpractices.  The  date  of  selection   may  be  so  fixed  or  manipulated  as  to  entertain   some  applicants  and  reject  others,  arbitrarily.   Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in   the  advertisement/  notification  inviting   applications with reference to which the requisite   qualifications should be judged,  the only certain  date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be   the  last  date  for  making  the  applications.   Reference in this connection may also be made to   two recent decisions of this Court in  A.P. Public   Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra(1990) 2  SCC 669; and District Collector and Chairman,   Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School   Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC  655.”                                            (Emphasis added)

11. In  Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, 1993 Supp  

(2) SCC 611 [hereinafter referred to as Ashok Kumar (1993)],  the  

majority view was as under:  

“The  fact  is  that  the  appellants  did  pass  the   examination  and  were  fully  qualified  for  being   

8

Page 9

selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing   the appellants to sit for the interview and by their   selection on the basis of their comparative merits,   the recruiting authority was able to get the best   talents  available.  It  was  certainly  in  the  public   interest  that  the  interview  was  made  as  broad  based as was possible on the basis of qualification.   The  reasoning  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  was   thus  based on sound principle  with  reference  to   comparatively superior merits. It was in the public   interest  that  better  candidates  who  were  fully  qualified  on  the  dates  of  selection were  not   rejected,  notwithstanding  that  the  results  of  the   examination  in  which  they  had  appeared  had   been delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants  were fully qualified on the dates of the interview  and  taking  into  account  the  generally  followed   principle  of  Rule  37  in  the  State  of  Jammu  &   Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view  adopted  by  the  learned  Judges of  the  Division   Bench was incorrect”.   

           (Emphasis added)

However, the opinion of Justice R.M. Sahai had been that these  

33 persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as  

they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last  

date of submission of applications.  

12. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in  Ashok Kumar Sharma  

v. Chander Shekhar  (1997) 4 SCC 18 reconsidered and explained  

the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) (supra) observing:

9

Page 10

“The  proposition  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 judged with reference   to  that  date  and  that  date  alone,  is  a  well- established  one.  A  person  who  acquires  the   prescribed  qualification  subsequent  to  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  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.  This   proposition  is  indisputable  and  in  fact  was  not   doubted or disputed in the majority judgment.”  

                                                    (Emphasis added)

The Court further explained that the majority view in  Ashok  

Kumar Sharma (1993)(supra) was not correct, rather the dissenting  

view by Justice R.M. Sahai was correct as the Court held as under:  

“The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing   the  33  respondents  to  appear  for  the  interview,  the   recruiting  authority  was  able  to  get  the  best  talent   available  and  that  such  course  was  in  furtherance  of   public  interest  is,  with  respect,  an  impermissible   

1

Page 11

justification.  It  is,  in  our  considered  opinion,  a  clear   error of law and an error apparent on the face of the   record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division   Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33   respondents could not have been allowed to appear for   the interview.”

                    (Emphasis added)

It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid  

case reference to  Rekha Chaturvedi (supra)  appears to have been  

made by a typographical error as the said judgment is by a two-Judge  

Bench of this Court. Infact the court wanted to make a reference to the  

case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) (supra).

13. In Bhupinderpal  Singh  v.  State  of  Punjab, AIR  2000  SC  

2011, this Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this  

Court held:  

“The High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date   by reference  to which the eligibility requirement   must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public   employment is the date appointed by the relevant   service  rules  and  if  there  be  no  cut-off  date   appointed by the rules then such date as may be   appointed  for  the  purpose  in  the  advertisement   calling  for  applications;  (ii)  that  if  there  be  no   such  date  appointed  then  the  eligibility  criteria   shall  be  applied  by  reference  to  the  last  date   appointed by which the applications have to be   received  by  the  competent  authority. The  view  taken by the High Court is supported by several   

1

Page 12

decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled   and hence cannot be found fault with.”

                                                    (Emphasis added)

14. This  Court  lately  in State  of  Gujarat  v.  Arvindkumar  T.  

Tiwari, AIR 2012 SC 3281 held:  

“A  person  who  does  not  possess  the  requisite   qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for   the  reason  that  his  appointment  would  be   contrary  to  the  statutory  rules,  and  would   therefore, be void in law.  Lacking eligibility for   the  post  cannot  be  cured  at  any  stage  and  appointing such a person would amount to serious   illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person   cannot approach the court  for any relief  for the   reason that he does not have a right which can be   enforced through court.  (See  Prit Singh v. S.K.   Mangal 1993  Supp  (1)  SCC  714  and  Pramod  Kumar  v.  U.P.  Secondary  Education  Services   Commission (2008) 7 SCC 153.)”  

 (Emphasis added)

15. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in  Pramod  

Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, (2008)  

7 SCC 153; and State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC  

436.  

16. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite  

qualification on the last date of submission of the application though  

1

Page 13

he applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer  

of  appointment  was  issued  to  him  which  was  provisional  and  

conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification, i.e.,  

eligibility, character verification etc.  Clause 11 of the letter of offer of  

appointment dated 23.2.2009 made it clear that in case character is not  

certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be  

terminated.   The  legal  proposition  that  emerges  from  the  settled  

position  of  law  as  enumerated  above  is  that  the  result  of  the  

examination does not relate back to the date of examination.  A person  

would  possess  qualification  only  on  the  date  of  declaration  of  the  

result.  Thus,  in view of the above, no exception can be taken to the  

judgment of the High Court.

17. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there  

could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the  

requirement  of  rules/advertisement  since  they  did  not  possess  the  

required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application  

forms.  Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the  

doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our  

Constitution.   A  large  number  of  such  candidates  may  not  have  

1

Page 14

applied  considering  themselves  to  be  ineligible  adhering  to  the  

statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.  

There  is  no  obligation  on  the  court  to  protect  an  illegal  

appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used only in  

an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat  

the rights of others or create arbitrariness.  Usurpation of a post by an  

ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process  

of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed  

within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed  

at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance.  

The appeal is devoid of any merit and does not present special  

features  warranting  any  interference  by  this  court.   The  appeal  is  

accordingly dismissed.  

…….…………………………………….J.            (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

….……………………………………….J. (S.A. BOBDE)

New Delhi;   July 29, 2013

1

Page 15

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6115 OF 2013

Santosh Kumar Meena & Ors.                                     …Appellants

Versus

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                                     …Respondents

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6117 OF 2013

and

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6119-6120 OF 2013

J U D G M E N T   

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

In terms of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.6116 of 2013, the  

above-mentioned appeals are accordingly dismissed.

…….…………………………………….J.  (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

….……………………………………….J. (S.A. BOBDE)

New Delhi;    July 29, 2013

1