Writ (A) Petition No.4817 of 2020 dated 05.03.2022
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/jurisdiction-of-nclt-in-valuation-of-assets-a-case-analysis/
(hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) filed by the appellants by which their claims for recruitment on the posts of Village Development Officers have been rejected.
However, Show-Cause Notice was issued by the respondent no.3/District Development Officer, Badaun to the appellants no.1 and 2 on 19.02.2020 and to appellant no.3 on 12.02.2020, as to why, their appointment be not held to be a nullity as on the last date of submission of application form, they were employed with the Armed Forces and could not be treated as Ex-Servicemen and further that they did not possess the C.C.C. Learned counsel submitted that the date on which the appellants can be deemed to be appointed is the date on which the appointment letters were issued and taking that into consideration in the present case, when the appointment letters were actually issued in May, 2019, prior thereto, the appellant no.1 stood 5 released on 31.07.2016, the appellant no.2 stood released on 30.11.2016 and the appellant no.3 also stood released on 29.02.2016, from the Armed Forces.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has taken the stand of the appellants being ineligible for appointment as they did not possess the requisite qualification, the reason being that they were not Ex-Servicemen as on the relevant date, when the post was advertised.
It was further urged that the stance of the appellants for consideration as Ex-Servicemen on the date of appointment is clearly in teeth of the settled principle of law where the advertisement itself was very clear that only Ex-Servicemen were eligible to even apply.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/unfair-charge-framing-a-legal-analysis/
Thus, learned counsel contended that the appellants, in any view of the matter, could not have taken any civil employment unless they were actually relieved, superannuated or retired, which ultimately would be a decision to be taken by the employer and mere indication in the certificate ipso facto would not mean that on the date indicated they would automatically come within the category of Ex- Servicemen.
We are afraid that they do not indicate that the appellants can be deemed Ex- Servicemen from a prospective date, despite being in actual service on the relevant date.
It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant 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. This Court would pause to state that the position discussed in the preceding paragraph is logical on the simple premise that even if a certification is given to a person indicating a prospective date till when he would be in employment, circumstances could intercede between the date of such certificate and the prospective date of retirement/resignation/relieving indicated therein.
In Rakesh Kumar Sharma ( supra ), this Court, after noticing, inter alia, Dr M V Nair v Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429 ; Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 ; Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262, and; State of Gujarat v Arvindkumar T Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 reiterated that basic qualification is to be adjudged on the last date of submission of application forms, subject to any extension of such date by the concerned authority.
Case Title: SUDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.
Case Number: C.A. No.-007069-007069 / 2023
