The Delhi High Court in DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND OTHERS V. UMA SHANKAR SHARMA AND MS PRIYANKA AND OTHERS IN W.P. (C) No. 834/13 and 914/13 held that in cases where date is prescribed in the advertisement as the last date by which a qualification is to be obtained then, the date is sacrosanct and on account of being so, is to be respected.
The Court observed that the date of selection for the posts advertised by DSSSB is invariably uncertain and in the absence of knowledge of such date, the candidates who apply for the said posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the post in question or not in cases where they are yet to acquire the qualifications. The Court observed further that 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 at present to even make applications for the post.
The court further said that the uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence whereby all those candidates who do not have the qualifications in present and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus thereby swelling the number of applications. The court also said that in addition to this a worse consequence that may ensue whereby the date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated so as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. The court said that Thence, in view of the same, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications in cases where there is absence of any fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications is be judged.
The Delhi High court observed that DSSSB had notified the last date by which eligibility had to be acquired and the advertisement inviting applications for the post had only given a wrong figure pertaining to the vacancies proposed to be filled up. The court said that corrigendum in the dispute simply corrected the advertisement by disclosing to the candidates, the exact number of vacancies proposed to be filled up. The court said this could not be said to mean that original advertisement inviting applications stood superseded as the corrigendum was aimed to correct only error in respect to the vacancies and the said corrigendum cannot be treated to mean that the original advertisement inviting applications stood superseded and thereby held in favour of the Petitioners DSSSB and held that date in the original advertisement shall be the last date by which eligibility shall be acquired and corrigendum was only intended to correct the number of vacant post originally advertised as they was an error in the number of post that was printed.
The court also said that there is no law that provided that the eligibility has to be always the last date by which the applications would be received. The court thus said that the date of eligibility has to be clearly spelt out and the same could be any date as per the advertisement inviting the applications
The dispute in the present case was with respect to judgment pronounced by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in favour of respondents with respect to the eligibility of respondents for making the application for the post of Assistant teacher that were advertised by DSSSB. DSSSB had invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant teacher indicating relevant vacant post and the last date for the receipt of applications with specifically notifying in the respect of same that the eligibility shall be determined with respect to the said date i.e. March 15, 2010. The advertisement also provided B.ED as the essential qualification for making the application. Subsequently, an error was noticed by the Board in the number of vacant post advertised and thereby they issued an Addendum and Corrigendum correcting the same and extended the date of receipt of application from 15th march 2010 to 25th march 2010
The respondents were not qualified as per the original advertisement prescribed cut-off date that was the last date by which the applications were to be received and were due to acquire their the essential qualification of B.ED before 25th march that was the extended date for the receipt of applications as per the corrigendum. The respondents therefore moved to CAT which relying upon another decision pronounced by it in Preeti Balyan held that prescribed date of eligibility had to be shifted to the date by which applications were to be received by the corrigendum. This decision of based on the decision rendered by CAT in Preeti Balyan which was later overruled by the division bench of the Delhi High Court.
The division bench Delhi High Court in Preeti Balyan case held that if a date is prescribed in the advertisement as the last date by which qualification is to be obtained than the said date is sacrosanct. The matter was respect to amended age qualification provided by corrigendum. The original advertisement had provided that candidates of age up to 27 years could apply to advertised vacant post and the applications were to be received by 15th January 2010. Thereafter corrigendum amending the original advertisement provided that the candidates up to age of 30 years can apply to the said post by 17th October. The Division bench of Delhi High court said that cut-off date for eligibility shall remain to be 15th Jan and observed that decision of the CAT holding shift in eligibility cut-off date to October 17, 2011 shall amount to modifying the track and shall result in making ineligible many candidates who cross the age of 30 years as of January 15, 2010. The court also said that vacancies pertained to the vacancy year 2010 and thus that explains the cut-off date being January 15, 2010 and thereby held that Board action of selection as per the CAT decision of taking into consideration requisite qualification as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring application was patently illegally and liable to be set aside.
The Delhi High Court relying upon its decision of division bench in Preeti Balyan case allowed writ petition of DSSSB and set aside the judgment of CAT and held against the respondents and held as noted above.
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
