SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

                 [2023] 14 S.C.R. 135 : 2023 INSC 960



                           CASE DETAILS

                   SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS
                                    v.
                    STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
                    (Civil Appeal No. 7069 of 2023)
                          OCTOBER 30, 2023
   [VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]

                             HEADNOTES

      Issue for consideration: Claims of the appellants for recruitment
on the posts of Village Development Officers if rightly rejected by High
Court in view of lack of eligibility of being Ex-Servicemen at the time of
the advertisement in question.
     Service Law – Basic eligibility/qualification – To be adjudged
as on the last date of submission of application forms, subject to any
extension of such date:
      Held: Basic question on eligibility has to be determined on the basis
of 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 – In the present case,
none of the appellants can be said to have been Ex-Servicemen at the
time of the advertisement in question, as, undisputedly, they were still in
service – Relevant rules and even the clarification(s) to the advertisement
do not indicate that the appellants can be deemed Ex-Servicemen from a
prospective date, despite being in actual service on the relevant date – As
such, in the case at hand, there is no concept of serving personnel being
deemed Ex-Servicemen – Also, the advertisement clearly specified a Course
of Computer Concept as the essential qualification however, the appellants
despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, failed to do so –
Impugned judgment upheld. [Paras 14, 15, 17-19]
    Service Law – Certification given to a person indicating a
prospective date till when he would be in employment, such date
                               135
136          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


indicated if can be taken as the date of being finally and actually relieved
from service:
      Held: No – Even if a certification is given to a person indicating a
prospective date till when he would be in employment, circumstances could
intercede between the date of such certificate and the prospective date of
retirement/resignation/relieving indicated therein – Illustratively, if for any
reason there is a proceeding/charge pending against the person(s) concerned
and/or there are circumstances for which the person cannot be relieved
from his post till conclusion of such proceedings or otherwise, such date
indicated in the certificate cannot be taken as the date of being finally and
actually relieved from service – However, in the present case, 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. [Para 15]

       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

      Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 11 SCC 58 –
relied on.
     Dr M V Nair v Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429: Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission v Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 1994 [1] SCR
131; Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262: State
of Gujarat v Arvindkumar T Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545: 2012 [7] SCR
1072; Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp
(3) SCC 168: State of Bihar v Madhu Kant Ranjan 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 1262 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7069 of
2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2022 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in CMW(A) P No.4817 of 2020.
       SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P.                        137
                    AND OTHERS

     Appearances:
     R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Santosh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Santosh
Kr. Vishwakarma, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Debashish Mishra, Advs. for the
Appellants.
     Parmanand Pandey, Utkarsh Pandey, Advs. for the respondents.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                             JUDGMENT

     AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
     Heard learned counsel for the parties.
     2. Leave granted.
      3. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “High
Court”) in Civil Misc. Writ (A) Petition No.4817 of 2020 dated 05.03.2022
(hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) filed by the appellants
by which their claims for recruitment on the posts of Village Development
Officers have been rejected.
     THE FACTUAL PRISM:
      4. The appellants were serving in the Armed Forces in various
capacities, at the relevant time, when an advertisement was issued by the
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the “Commission”) for recruitment to the post of Village
Development Officer. The registration for applications commenced on
18.01.2016 and the last date of submission of the application forms was
10.02.2016. The appellants applied in the category of Ex-Servicemen after
obtaining No-Objection Certificate(s) (hereinafter referred to as “NOC”)
from the employer(s). Initially, their result was withheld for various
reasons but ultimately, they were issued appointment letters on 29.05.2019
(appellants no.1 & 2) & on 27.05.2019 (appellant no.3) respectively, on
temporary basis. Worthwhile to note is that this was after the appellants
were asked to appear before the Commission on 26.12.2018 with necessary
138            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 14 S.C.R.


documents pertaining to their qualification and more so with regard having
equivalence to the Course of Computer Concept (hereinafter referred to as
the “C.C.C. Certificate”). However, Show-Cause Notice was issued by the
respondent no.3/District Development Officer, Badaun to the appellants no.1
and 2 on 19.02.2020 and to appellant no.3 on 12.02.2020, as to why, their
appointment be not held to be a nullity as on the last date of submission of
application form, they were employed with the Armed Forces and could
not be treated as Ex-Servicemen and further that they did not possess the
C.C.C. Certificate issued by the DOEACC1, now NIELIT2.
      5. Subsequently, on 05.05.2020 (appellants no.1 & 2) and 28.04.2020
(appellant no.3) respectively, orders declaring the appellants’ appointments
to be null and void were issued for the afore-mentioned reasons, as indicated
in the Show-Cause Notice.
      SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
     6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on both the
grounds, the Show-Cause Notice was erroneous. It was submitted that the
conduct of the authorities, while giving them time to produce documents
and the same having been accepted, shows that they possessed the basic
and relevant qualification for appointment to the concerned posts.
     7. Learned counsel submitted that the date on which the appellants
can be deemed to be appointed is the date on which the appointment letters
were issued and taking that into consideration in the present case, when
the appointment letters were actually issued in May, 2019, prior thereto,
the appellant no.1 stood released on 31.07.2016, the appellant no.2 stood
released on 30.11.2016 and the appellant no.3 also stood released on
29.02.2016, from the Armed Forces. As far as non-possession of the C.C.C.
Certificate is concerned, the stand taken was that the appellants having higher
qualification than what was required as also already having an equivalent
qualification, their case(s) were recommended by the Commission for
appointment.



1     Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses.
2     National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology.
      SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P.                           139
      AND OTHERS [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

     SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE & ITS FUNCTIONARIES:
      8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has taken the stand of
the appellants being ineligible for appointment as they did not possess the
requisite qualification, the reason being that they were not Ex-Servicemen
as on the relevant date, when the post was advertised.
     9. Further, it was contended that none of the appellants had the C.C.C.
Certificate on the date of the advertisement, which they had concealed,
and which was an essential qualification for being appointed to the post
advertised.
      10. Learned counsel submitted that not having disclosed the factual
position at the time of filling up the form amounted to grave misconduct.
Moreover, it was contended that even when the appellants were directed
to produce the educational testimonials and documents on 26.12.2018 to
demonstrate that they possessed equivalent qualification to the C.C.C.
Certificate, they could not produce the same as admittedly, the certificates
produced by them were not equivalent to C.C.C. Certificate.
      11. It was further urged that the stance of the appellants for
consideration as Ex-Servicemen on the date of appointment is clearly in
teeth of the settled principle of law where the advertisement itself was very
clear that only Ex-Servicemen were eligible to even apply.
      12. Learned counsel indicated that even in the NOC issued to the
appellant no.1, it was mentioned that he was eligible to civil appointment
after the particular date specified which was beyond the last date for
submission of application forms, and further that the NOC also mentioned
that the Office/Employer had no objection to the registration of the
appellant’s name with the Employment Exchange, which, in no way, could
confer on him a right to be considered under the category of Ex-Servicemen.
Thus, learned counsel contended that the appellants, in any view of the
matter, could not have taken any civil employment unless they were actually
relieved, superannuated or retired, which ultimately would be a decision to
be taken by the employer and mere indication in the certificate ipso facto
would not mean that on the date indicated they would automatically come
within the category of Ex-Servicemen.
140           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


     13. Learned counsel went to the extent of arguing that the appellants’
conduct indicates a fraud committed by them. It was advanced that the
appellants had, in fact, attempted to take posts which were meant for Ex-
Servicemen who were actually without employment, and not for persons
who were still employed in the Armed Forces.
      ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
      14. Having bestowed anxious thought and consideration to the rival
submissions at the Bar combined with a careful perusal of the record, we
are unable to find any error in the Impugned Judgment passed by the High
Court, much less any illegality, warranting our interference. It is well-settled
that the basic question on eligibility has to be determined on the basis of
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. In the present scenario, none
of the appellants can be said to have been Ex-Servicemen at the time of the
advertisement in question, as, undisputedly, they were still in service. This
Court has also examined the relevant rules and even the clarification(s) to
the advertisement. We are afraid that they do not indicate that the appellants
can be deemed Ex-Servicemen from a prospective date, despite being in
actual service on the relevant date. As such, in the case at hand at least, there
is no concept of serving personnel being deemed Ex-Servicemen. It would
not be proper for this Court to hold or interpret otherwise. Arguendo, if we
were to venture down such a path, 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. This concern has not emanated for the first time.
In Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58, this
Court observed:
      ‘22. 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
       SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P.                                    141
       AND OTHERS [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

     applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the
     statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.’
                                                                (emphasis supplied)
      15. This Court would pause to state that the position discussed in
the preceding paragraph is logical on the simple premise that even if a
certification is given to a person indicating a prospective date till when he
would be in employment, circumstances could intercede between the date of
such certificate and the prospective date of retirement/resignation/relieving
indicated therein. Illustratively, if for any reason there is a proceeding/charge
pending against the person(s) concerned and/or there are circumstances
for which the person cannot be relieved from his post till conclusion of
such proceedings or otherwise, such date indicated in the certificate cannot
be taken as the date of being finally and actually 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.
      16. In Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra), this Court, after noticing, inter
alia, Dr M V Nair v Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429; Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission v Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723; Bhupinderpal
Singh v State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262, and; State of Gujarat v
Arvindkumar T Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 reiterated that basic qualification
is to be adjudged as on the last date of submission of application forms,
subject to any extension of such date by the concerned authority. In Rekha
Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 1683,
the proposition was enunciated as under:
     ‘10. 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



3    The Court though, opted not to disturb the appointments therein, on the ground that
    over 8 years of service had been put in by the concerned appointees.
142          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      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 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. …’
                                                         (emphasis supplied)
      17. The Court, vide its judgment in State of Bihar v Madhu Kant
Ranjan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1262, also took the view that ‘ As per the
settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the
conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date
mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority.
      18. In the above analysis, though the Court is not required to go
into the question of equivalence apropos the C.C.C. Certificate, but since
contentions thereon were argued, we may reiterate that the advertisement
clearly specified the essential qualification was a C.C.C. Certificate. The
appellants despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, having
failed to do so, nothing survives on this count.
     19. Having considered the matter in toto, the appeal, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed. The Impugned Judgment is upheld.
       SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P.                       143
       AND OTHERS [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

      20. However, any payments made to the appellants for the period
they have actually worked as Village Development Officers, shall not be
recovered. If any such recoveries have already been effected, the same be
returned to the appellants forthwith.
      21. No order as to costs.


Headnotes prepared by:                                    Appeal dismissed.
Divya Pandey