http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/08/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1997 Present:             Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar             Hon’ble mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Rao K.S.Bhati, M.K.Singh, Advs. for the appellant Rajendra Singhvi and A.K.Singh, Advs for the Respondent                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:                          O R D E R Leave granted.      Heard both  sides.   In the  Advertisement No.1 of 1992 which  was   issued  on   9.6.92  it  was  stated  that  the application form must reach the office of the Zila Parishad, Dungarpur latest  by 5.00  p.m. on  29.6.92.  The prescribed qualifications of  B.S.T.C. or its equivalent, recognised by the State  Government.   The last paragraph of advertisement stated that  no certificates/marks-sheet  will  be  accepted after the receipt of application forms in the office.      The respondent  did not possess the requisite technical qualification  on  29.6.92  which  was  the  last  date  for submitting application.   He  had  appeared  for  the  B.Ed. examination but  the results  were not  declared on 29.6.97. The results  were declared  only on  6.8.92.  The interviews for the  advertised posts  were held  from 1st of September, 1992 onwards.      The respondent was not called for an interview since on the date  of the  receipt of  his application,  he  did  not possess any  technical qualification.   On 1.9.92 he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan and obtained an interim order  requiring the  appellant to  call him  for an interview.  Pursuant   to  this   interim  order,   he   was interviewed and  thereafter, on  the basis of the directions which the  respondent obtained  from the  High Court, he was included in  the  list  of  selected  candidates.    He  was appointed thereafter  on a  provisional basis subject to the outcome        of         this        writ         petition. According tot he respondent he has now been confirmed.      The writ  petition was  dismissed by  a Single Judge of the High Court by this order dated 17.7.95, holding that the cut-off  date   for  ascertaining  the  eligibility  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

respondent under  the said  advertisement was  the last date prescribed for  submission of  the application i.e. 29.6.92. On 5.2.96  the services of the respondent were discontinued. The respondent  filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High  Court which  has been allowed.  The present appeal is from the decision of the Division Bench.      Looking to  the clear  terms of the advertisement which we have  referred to  above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration.  It is submitted by the respondent before us that  since he  has  been  continued  and  has  now  been confirmed we  should not  disturb his  appointment.   He has requested   that    his   case    should    be    considered sympathetically.    The  fact,  however,  remains  that  the appellants have  taken the  correct  stand  right  from  the beginning.   The respondent’s application was not considered and he  was not  called for an interview.  It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was  given appointment  and continued.  He was aware that his appointment  was subject to the outcome of his petition. One cannot,  therefore, take  too sympathetic  a view of the situation in  which the  respondent find himself.  A cut-off date   by   which   all   the   requirements   relating   to qualifications have  to be  met, cannot  be  ignored  in  an individual case.   There may be other persons who would have applied  had   they  known   that  the   date  of  acquiring qualifications was  flexible.   They may  not  have  applied because they did not possesss the requisite qualification on the prescribed date.  Relaxing he prescribed requirements in the case  of one  individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others.      In the  premises, the  respondent was  not eligible for consideration.   We, therefore, allows the appeal, set aside the impugned  order of  the High  Court and dismiss the writ petition filed  by the  respondent.  There shall be no order as to costs.