# Raj Kumar and others v. Public Service Commission Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27686 of 2003
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, D.P. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-and-others-v-public-service-commission-uttar-pradesh-allahabad-40147
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-Service
Law
Selection-eligibility-criterion
forsettled
law-candidate
must
possess
requisite qualifications/illegibility on the
last
date
of
submission
of
the
application.

1993 (2) SCC 429. Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. U.O.I and
1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706 Harpal Kaur Chahal
Vs. Director Punjab Instructions, relied upon
Case laws discussed:
AIR 1983 SC 852
AIR 1983 SC 1143
AIR 1988 SC 1143
AIR 1988 SC 2068
AIR 1990 SC 405
1994 (2) SCC 723
1994 (6) SCC 151
1997 (10) SCC 419
1997 (4) SCC 18
1997 SC 1803
AIR 1999 SC 2093

Held- Para 15

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.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
492
respondent No. 4 is not accepted in the reauction, they shall be refunded their
respective security amounts forthwith.

19. In the result, subject to the
directions issued above, the writ petition
is partly allowed, without there being any
order as to costs. The auction dated
19.2.2003, in pursuance of which the
contract has been granted in favour of
respondent No. 4, is set aside. The other
prayer for the acceptance of the offer of
the petitioner at 2% above the reserved
price is however refused.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE D.P. GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27686 of 2003

Raj Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Public
Service
Commission
Uttar
Pradesh, Allahabad
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Neeraj Tiwari
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-Service
Law
Selection-eligibility-criterion
forsettled
law-candidate
must
possess
requisite qualifications/illegibility on the
last
date
of
submission
of
the
application.

1993 (2) SCC 429. Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. U.O.I and
1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706 Harpal Kaur Chahal
Vs. Director Punjab Instructions, relied upon
Case laws discussed:
AIR 1983 SC 852
AIR 1983 SC 1143
AIR 1988 SC 1143
AIR 1988 SC 2068
AIR 1990 SC 405
1994 (2) SCC 723
1994 (6) SCC 151
1997 (10) SCC 419
1997 (4) SCC 18
1997 SC 1803
AIR 1999 SC 2093

Held- Para 15

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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)

1. 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.

2. Facts and circumstances giving
rise to this case are that on 21/27th 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that as there has been
irregularities in holding the examination
and completing the internship by the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Raj Kumar and others V. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and others
493
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.

4. 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.

5. In Y.V. Rangaiah & ors. Vs. J.
Sreenivasa Rao & ors., AIR 1983 SC
852; A.A. Calton Vs. Director of
Education & Anr., AIR 1983 SC 1143; P.
Gyaneshwar Rao & ors. Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh & ors., AIR 1988 SC
2068; and P. Mahendran & ors. Vs. State
of Karnataka & ors., AIR 1990 SC 405,
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 the reason that selection
process starts with advertisement and all
those persons who apply in response to
the same, would be eligible to be
considered.

6. 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.

7. The Three Judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair
Vs. Union of India & ors., (1993) 2 SCC
429, 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."

8.

In
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission Vs. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC
723, 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.

9. In State of M.P. & ors Vs.
Raghuveer Singh Yadav & ors., (1994) 6
SCC 151, 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'ble 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.

10. In Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs.
Director,
Punjab
Instructions,
1995
(Suppl.) 4 SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held:-
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
494
"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."

11. In State of Rajasthan Vs. R.
Dayal & ors., (1997) 10 SCC 419, 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.

12. In Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs.
Chandra Shekhar & ors., (1997) 4 SCC
18, 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.

13. In Dr. Ramulu & Anr. Vs. Dr. S.
Suryaprakash Rao & ors., AIR 1997 SC
1803, 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.

14. In Utkal University etc. Vs. Dr.
Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & ors., AIR
1999 SC 943; and Gopal Krushna Rath
Vs. M.A.A. Baig, AIR 1999 SC 2093, the
Hon'ble 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.

15. 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.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22253 of 1987

Shiv Shanker Pal

...Petitioner
Versus
Gorakhpur Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dr. R.G. Padia

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-Govt.
Com. and controlled by the Govt.-within
the meaning of state-writ petition held
maintainable

Held- Para 6

The
first
argument
of
the
learned
counsel for the petitioner appears to be
correct. A bare perusal of the counter
affidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
the
respondents
shows
that
it
is
a
Government
company
and
fully
controlled by the State Government
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in