Amarjit Singh Naura vs P.U. Chandigarh

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not issuing him appointment letter. The brief facts are that post of the Assistant Professor in Bio-Chemistry (and other posts in other specialisations) were advertised, the last date for which was 27.07.2009. The petitioner applied and, in an interview held on 23.06.2010 was selected at No. 1. The selection was duly approved by the Syndicate on 29.06.2010 and was subsequently approved by the senate also. However, subsequently the appointment letter has been withheld on the grounds that the petitioner did not meet some stipulation laid down by the UGC on 28.6.2010. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the precise grievance of the petitioner is that the qualification which may have been prescribed after the date of the advertisement would have no application on the case of the petitioner. It is now beyond the pale of any controversy that the qualifications cannot be changed after the advertisement has been issued. In Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

"6......the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling 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 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 application 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. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan......"

Similarly in Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in paras 6 and 7 held as follows:

"6. When the selection process has actually commenced and the last date for inviting applications is over, any subsequent change in the requirement regarding qualifications by the University Grants Commission will not affect the process of selection which has already commenced. Otherwise it would involve issuing a fresh advertisement with the new qualifications. In the case of P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka this Court has observed:

It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. The Court further observed that:

Since the amending rules were not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, mover over, as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force , the amended Rules could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment.

In the present case, therefore, the appellant possessed the necessary qualifications as advertised on the last date of receiving applications. These qualifications were in accordance with the Rules/guidelines then in force. There is also no doubt that the appellant obtained higher marks than the original respondent No. 1 at the selection. There is no challenge to the process of selection, nor is there any allegation of mala fides in the process of selection."

In Madan Mohan Sharma and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court reiterated the above position of law in the following terms:

"11. Once the advertisement had been issued on the basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that the selection process should continue on the basis of the criteria which was laid down and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made subsequently.

As per the circular which was obtaining at the time when the advertisement was issued was dt. 4.7.1995, the criteria for selection to the post of Teacher Grade III was Secondary Examination though this was changed during the pendency of the advertisement. Subsequent amendment of the Rules which was prospective cannot be made retrospective so as to make the selection on the basis of the Rules which were subsequently amended. If this was to be done, then the only course open was to recall the advertisement No. 1/1996 and to issue fresh advertisement according to the Rules which had come into force."

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to cite any contrary judgment. In view of the judgments cited above the action of the respondents in seeking to withhold the appointment letter issued to the petitioner (and in effect nullifying his selection) cannot be held to be justified in any manner. The writ petition is therefore allowed Respondents are directed to issue appointments letter to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits except monetary benefits for the period he remained out of service.