# CASE DETAILS SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 960
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-10-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7069 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-sudhir-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-36700
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: Claims of the appellants for recruitment
on the posts of Village Development Offi cers if rightly rejected by High
Court in view of lack of eligibility of being Ex-Servicemen at the time of
the advertisement in question.
Service Law - Basic eligibility/qualifi cation - To be adjudged
as on the last date of submission of application forms, subject to any
extension of such date:
Held: Basic question on eligibility has to be determined on the basis
of the cut-off date/point of time which stands crystalized by the date of
the advertisement itself, being the last date of submission of application
forms, unless extended by the authority concerned - In the present case,
none of the appellants can be said to have been Ex-Servicemen at the
time of the advertisement in question, as, undisputedly, they were still in
service - Relevant rules and even the clarifi cation(s) to the advertisement
do not indicate that the appellants can be deemed Ex-Servicemen from a
prospective date, despite being in actual service on the relevant date - As
such, in the case at hand, there is no concept of serving personnel being
deemed Ex-Servicemen - Also, the advertisement clearly specifi ed a Course
of Computer Concept as the essential qualifi cation however, the appellants
despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, failed to do so -
Impugned judgment upheld. [Paras 14, 15, 17-19]
Service Law - Certification given to a person indicating a
prospective date till when he would be in employment, such date
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
indicated if can be taken as the date of being fi nally and actually relieved
from service:
Held: No - Even if a certifi cation is given to a person indicating a
prospective date till when he would be in employment, circumstances could
intercede between the date of such certifi cate and the prospective date of
retirement/resignation/relieving indicated therein - Illustratively, if for any
reason there is a proceeding/charge pending against the person(s) concerned
and/or there are circumstances for which the person cannot be relieved
from his post till conclusion of such proceedings or otherwise, such date
indicated in the certifi cate cannot be taken as the date of being fi nally and
actually relieved from service - However, in the present case, such date is
also prospective and much later to the date on which the applications were
invited and even till the last date of submission of the application forms -
Thus, on this count alone, the appellants' claim of a right to consideration
under the Ex-Servicemen category fails. [Para 15]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 11 SCC 58 -
relied on.
Dr M V Nair v Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429: Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission v Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 1994 [1] SCR
131; Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262: State
of Gujarat v Arvindkumar T Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545: 2012 [7] SCR
1072; Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp
(3) SCC 168: State of Bihar v Madhu Kant Ranjan 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 1262 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES

## Text

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 135 : 2023 INSC 960
135
CASE DETAILS
SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7069 of 2023)
OCTOBER 30, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Claims of the appellants for recruitment
on the posts of Village Development Offi cers if rightly rejected by High
Court in view of lack of eligibility of being Ex-Servicemen at the time of
the advertisement in question.
Service Law - Basic eligibility/qualifi cation - To be adjudged
as on the last date of submission of application forms, subject to any
extension of such date:
Held: Basic question on eligibility has to be determined on the basis
of the cut-off date/point of time which stands crystalized by the date of
the advertisement itself, being the last date of submission of application
forms, unless extended by the authority concerned - In the present case,
none of the appellants can be said to have been Ex-Servicemen at the
time of the advertisement in question, as, undisputedly, they were still in
service - Relevant rules and even the clarifi cation(s) to the advertisement
do not indicate that the appellants can be deemed Ex-Servicemen from a
prospective date, despite being in actual service on the relevant date - As
such, in the case at hand, there is no concept of serving personnel being
deemed Ex-Servicemen - Also, the advertisement clearly specifi ed a Course
of Computer Concept as the essential qualifi cation however, the appellants
despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, failed to do so -
Impugned judgment upheld. [Paras 14, 15, 17-19]
Service Law - Certification given to a person indicating a
prospective date till when he would be in employment, such date
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
indicated if can be taken as the date of being fi nally and actually relieved
from service:
Held: No - Even if a certifi cation is given to a person indicating a
prospective date till when he would be in employment, circumstances could
intercede between the date of such certifi cate and the prospective date of
retirement/resignation/relieving indicated therein - Illustratively, if for any
reason there is a proceeding/charge pending against the person(s) concerned
and/or there are circumstances for which the person cannot be relieved
from his post till conclusion of such proceedings or otherwise, such date
indicated in the certifi cate cannot be taken as the date of being fi nally and
actually relieved from service - However, in the present case, such date is
also prospective and much later to the date on which the applications were
invited and even till the last date of submission of the application forms -
Thus, on this count alone, the appellants' claim of a right to consideration
under the Ex-Servicemen category fails. [Para 15]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 11 SCC 58 -
relied on.
Dr M V Nair v Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429: Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission v Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 1994 [1] SCR
131; Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262: State
of Gujarat v Arvindkumar T Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545: 2012 [7] SCR
1072; Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp
(3) SCC 168: State of Bihar v Madhu Kant Ranjan 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 1262 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7069 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2022 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in CMW(A) P No.4817 of 2020.
137
Appearances:
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Santosh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Santosh
Kr. Vishwakarma, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Debashish Mishra, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Parmanand Pandey, Utkarsh Pandey, Advs. for the respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "High
Court") in Civil Misc. Writ (A) Petition No.4817 of 2020 dated 05.03.2022
(hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Judgment") fi led by the appellants
by which their claims for recruitment on the posts of Village Development
Offi cers have been rejected.
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
4. The appellants were serving in the Armed Forces in various
capacities, at the relevant time, when an advertisement was issued by the
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission") for recruitment to the post of Village
Development Offi cer. The registration for applications commenced on
18.01.2016 and the last date of submission of the application forms was
10.02.2016. The appellants applied in the category of Ex-Servicemen after
obtaining No-Objection Certifi cate(s) (hereinafter referred to as "NOC")
from the employer(s). Initially, their result was withheld for various
reasons but ultimately, they were issued appointment letters on 29.05.2019
(appellants no.1 & 2) & on 27.05.2019 (appellant no.3) respectively, on
temporary basis. Worthwhile to note is that this was after the appellants
were asked to appear before the Commission on 26.12.2018 with necessary
SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P.
AND OTHERS
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
documents pertaining to their qualifi cation and more so with regard having
equivalence to the Course of Computer Concept (hereinafter referred to as
the "C.C.C. Certifi cate"). However, Show-Cause Notice was issued by the
respondent no.3/District Development Offi cer, 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. Certifi cate issued by the DOEACC1, now NIELIT2.
5. Subsequently, on 05.05.2020 (appellants no.1 & 2) and 28.04.2020
(appellant no.3) respectively, orders declaring the appellants' appointments
to be null and void were issued for the afore-mentioned reasons, as indicated
in the Show-Cause Notice.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on both the
grounds, the Show-Cause Notice was erroneous. It was submitted that the
conduct of the authorities, while giving them time to produce documents
and the same having been accepted, shows that they possessed the basic
and relevant qualifi cation for appointment to the concerned posts.
7. 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 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. As far as non-possession of the C.C.C.
Certifi cate is concerned, the stand taken was that the appellants having higher
qualifi cation than what was required as also already having an equivalent
qualifi cation, their case(s) were recommended by the Commission for
appointment.
1
 Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses.
2
 National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology.
139
SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE & ITS FUNCTIONARIES:
8. 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 qualifi cation, the reason being that they were not Ex-Servicemen
as on the relevant date, when the post was advertised.
9. Further, it was contended that none of the appellants had the C.C.C.
Certifi cate on the date of the advertisement, which they had concealed,
and which was an essential qualifi cation for being appointed to the post
advertised.
10. Learned counsel submitted that not having disclosed the factual
position at the time of fi lling up the form amounted to grave misconduct.
Moreover, it was contended that even when the appellants were directed
to produce the educational testimonials and documents on 26.12.2018 to
demonstrate that they possessed equivalent qualifi cation to the C.C.C.
Certifi cate, they could not produce the same as admittedly, the certifi cates
produced by them were not equivalent to C.C.C. Certifi cate.
11. 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.
12. Learned counsel indicated that even in the NOC issued to the
appellant no.1, it was mentioned that he was eligible to civil appointment
after the particular date specifi ed which was beyond the last date for
submission of application forms, and further that the NOC also mentioned
that the Office/Employer had no objection to the registration of the
appellant's name with the Employment Exchange, which, in no way, could
confer on him a right to be considered under the category of Ex-Servicemen.
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 certifi cate ipso facto
would not mean that on the date indicated they would automatically come
within the category of Ex-Servicemen.
SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P.
AND OTHERS [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
13. Learned counsel went to the extent of arguing that the appellants'
conduct indicates a fraud committed by them. It was advanced that the
appellants had, in fact, attempted to take posts which were meant for ExServicemen who were actually without employment, and not for persons
who were still employed in the Armed Forces.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
14. Having bestowed anxious thought and consideration to the rival
submissions at the Bar combined with a careful perusal of the record, we
are unable to fi nd any error in the Impugned Judgment passed by the High
Court, much less any illegality, warranting our interference. It is well-settled
that the basic question on eligibility has to be determined on the basis of
the cut-off date/point of time which stands crystalized by the date of the
advertisement itself, being the last date of submission of application forms,
unless extended by the authority concerned. In the present scenario, none
of the appellants can be said to have been Ex-Servicemen at the time of the
advertisement in question, as, undisputedly, they were still in service. This
Court has also examined the relevant rules and even the clarifi cation(s) to
the advertisement. 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. As such, in the case at hand at least, there
is no concept of serving personnel being deemed Ex-Servicemen. It would
not be proper for this Court to hold or interpret otherwise. Arguendo, if we
were to venture down such a path, it would be unjust to a large number of
others similarly placed as the appellants, who were not Ex-Servicemen as
on the date of advertisement but came under the category later, but did not
apply at the relevant time. This concern has not emanated for the fi rst time.
In Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58, this
Court observed:
'22. 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. Granting any benefi t to the appellant 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
141
applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the
statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.'
(emphasis supplied)
15. This Court would pause to state that the position discussed in
the preceding paragraph is logical on the simple premise that even if a
certifi cation is given to a person indicating a prospective date till when he
would be in employment, circumstances could intercede between the date of
such certifi cate and the prospective date of retirement/resignation/relieving
indicated therein. Illustratively, if for any reason there is a proceeding/charge
pending against the person(s) concerned and/or there are circumstances
for which the person cannot be relieved from his post till conclusion of
such proceedings or otherwise, such date indicated in the certifi cate cannot
be taken as the date of being fi nally and actually relieved from service.
However, in the instant situation, such date is also prospective and much
later to the date on which the applications were invited and even till the
last date of submission of the application forms. Thus, on this count alone,
the appellants' claim of a right to consideration under the Ex-Servicemen
category fails.
16. 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 qualifi cation
is to be adjudged as on the last date of submission of application forms,
subject to any extension of such date by the concerned authority. In Rekha
Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 1683,
the proposition was enunciated as under:
'10. The contention that the required qualifi cations of the candidates
should be examined with reference to the date of selection and
not with reference to the last date for making applications has
only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably
3
 The Court though, opted not to disturb the appointments therein, on the ground that
over 8 years of service had been put in by the concerned appointees.
SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P.
AND OTHERS [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates
who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are
qualifi ed for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire
the qualifi cations. Unless the advertisement mentions a fi xed date
with reference to which the qualifi cations 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 qualifi cations in
praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty
of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even
those candidates who do not have the qualifi cations in praesenti
and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may
apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But
a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a
scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fi xed or
manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others,
arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fi xed date indicated in the
advertisement/notifi cation inviting applications with reference to
which the requisite qualifi cations should be judged, the only certain
date for the scrutiny of the qualifi cations will be the last date for
making the applications. ...'
(emphasis supplied)
17. The Court, vide its judgment in State of Bihar v Madhu Kant
Ranjan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1262, also took the view that ' As per the
settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the
conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date
mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority.
18. In the above analysis, though the Court is not required to go
into the question of equivalence apropos the C.C.C. Certifi cate, but since
contentions thereon were argued, we may reiterate that the advertisement
clearly specifi ed the essential qualifi cation was a C.C.C. Certifi cate. The
appellants despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, having
failed to do so, nothing survives on this count.
19. Having considered the matter in toto, the appeal, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed. The Impugned Judgment is upheld.
143
20. However, any payments made to the appellants for the period
they have actually worked as Village Development Offi cers, shall not be
recovered. If any such recoveries have already been eff ected, the same be
returned to the appellants forthwith.
21. No order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by:
Appeal dismissed.
Divya Pandey
SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P.
AND OTHERS [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]