Raj Kumar and Others vs Public Service Commission

B.S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioners in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 1/2003-2004, issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 21st/27th June, 2003 Public Service Commission advertised the vacancies of Medical Officers, prescribing the eligibility that the person applying must have the internship completed by the last date of submitting the Application Form, for what, petitioners had not completed their internship till the last date of submitting the Application Forms. Hence this petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as there has been irregularities in holding the examination and completing the internship by the authorities concerned, and it was beyond control of the petitioners, they should not suffer for no fault of theirs. Therefore, this Court should issue direction to the respondent to consider their candidatures.

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed this submission vehemently contending that prescribing the eligibility for a particular post is a legislative question and the Court does not have power to issue direction for contravention of the said policy, and thus, the Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners.

In Y.V. Rangaiah and Others Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others, ; A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education and Another, ; P. Ganeshwar Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, and P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, ; the Hon''ble Supreme Court has taken the view that candidates have to be assessed for selection as per the eligibility criteria existing on the date of advertisement of vacancies for tie reason that selection process starts with advertisement and all those persons who apply in response to the same, would be eligible to be considered.

All the judgments, referred to above, have been given by the two Hon''ble Judges'' Bench except P. Mahendran (supra), which was given by the Bench of three Hon''ble Judges.

The Three Judges Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; without taking note of P. Mahendran (supra), 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."

In U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Another Vs. Alpana, , the Hon''ble Supreme 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 though that was a case where result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. The Hon''ble Supreme 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 the applications, a candidate, whose result has not been declared upto the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible.

In State of M.P. and Others Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Others, the Apex Court examined a case where during process of selection, the Rules were amended but subsequently the Commission/State abandoned the selection process and advertised vacancies afresh to be filled up in accordance with the amendment. The Hon''blc Supreme Court upheld the action of the State on the ground that the persons, who had applied earlier, had not acquired any vested right, therefore, the State''s action was justified.

In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706; the Hon''ble Supreme 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."

In State of Rajasthan Vs. R. Dayal and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while considering the case for promotion, held that the eligibility for promotion must be as in the year when the vacancies arose, but that was not a case of direct recruitment.

In Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held 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 adjudged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established proposition of law.

In Dr. Ramulu and another, etc. Vs. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao and others, the Hon''ble Apex Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments and held that if the Rules have been amended, person has a right to be considered as per the amended Rules unless his existing rights prior to the amendment have specifically been saved and for the reason that he cannot claim to have acquired any vested right for being considered in accordance with the Rules existing prior to the amendment.

In Utkal University Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Others, and Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, the Hon''blc Supreme Court again reiterated that the eligibility is to be assessed as per the Rules existing on the last date of submission of the applications.

In view of the above, as it is settled legal proposition that the candidate must possess requisite qualification/eligibility on the last date of submission of the Application Form, we see no ground to interfere. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.