Vaibhav Jatav And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ

In all these petitions, the grievance of the petitioners who are aspirants for the post of Assistant Professor is that they may be permitted to take the examination for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. As per the petitioners, the eligibility qualification for the post of Assistant Professor is Post Graduate/PHD in the respective subjects. As per the petitioners, the respondent mandated that the candidate applying for the said post must possess the requisite educational qualification as on the last date of submitting application i.e. on 26.03.2025, which was later on extended till 10.04.2025.

It is an admitted position that none of the petitioners had the requisite qualification as on the last date of submitting the application. The contention of the petitioners is that they were students studying in the final semester/final year of their respective course and would have qualified by the time the selection process was completed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in similar circumstances, in other services such a permission is granted by the advertisement itself permitting students to participate in the selection process, if they are in the final semsester/year of their qualifying examination.

Since it is an admitted position that none of the petitioners possessed the requisite eligibility educational qualification as on the cut-off date i.e. last date for submission of applications which was 10.04.2025, none of the petitioners could have been permitted to participate in the examination. In some of the cases, by an interim order, they were permitted to take the written examination and now the candidates are seeking permission to appear in the interviews.

We are unable to accept the contention on behalf of petitioners. Since the advertisement mandates minimum eligibility educational qualification and stipulates that the candidate should possess such qualification as on the last date for submitting the application i.e. on 10.04.2025, the candidates must possess said qualification as on the cut-off date. None of the candidates in the present case possessed the qualification as on the cut-off date. Petitioners are merely seeking a chance of appearance on the premise that they will qualify their respective qualifying examination. That can never be the case. Furthermore, we may note that there may be candidates who are senior to the petitioners and already possessed the qualifications and since there are limited number of seats, in case petitioners are permitted to participate in the selection process merely on an assumption that by the time the selection process gets completed, they would have qualified the examination, they are likely to affect the seats which are available for the already qualified candidates who possessed the requisite qualification as on the cut-off date.

Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Chander Shekhar and Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 18, wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that a candidate who does not possess the requisite eligibility qualification, cannot be permitted to participate in the selection process. It is further held by the Supreme Court 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. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all.

Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT OF DELHI) and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 58, wherein the Supreme Court has held that like the present petitioners 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 petitioners 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 applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement. It is further held by the Supreme Court that usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible.

Since admittedly, none of the petitioners possessed the requisite eligibility educational qualification for the respective posts as on the cut-off date, they cannot be permitted to participate in the selection process. Merely because some petitioners have been permitted to participate in the written examination by way of an interim order will not be of any consequence as no benefit will flow to such a petitioner who is otherwise ineligible to participate in the selection process.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the petitions. Petitions are accordingly, dismissed.

Interim Orders are vacated.