Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court held that the eligibility of the candidates must be decided by reference to the qualification possessed as on the cut-off date and the qualification subsequently acquired at a point of time cannot make a candidate eligible for selection and appointment of the appellants as Junior Engineers. A Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph, however, granted relief to two of these employees (who were appointed despite having acquired the required qualification after the deadline) who continued working for the past nearly 2 decades. The division office of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir had left aside the selection and appointment of Rakesh Bakshi and Parvinder Singh as Junior Engineers because they had cleared the prescribed qualification after the deadline and, therefore, did not possess the required qualifications for appointment.
Rakesh and Parvinder had qualified after the last date to receive the applications but before the interview date. Rakesh was called for an interview but Parvinder has been removed from the list. Parvinder went to the High Court, which considered that if the selection board interpreted the eligibility clause in a particular way in the case of Rakesh who had cleared the exam along with Parvinder, there is no justification for a giving different explanation. The High Court directed and an interview was conducted. Both of them were appointed in employment in 1997. A single bench dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of their appointment. The Apex Court later restored the order which has been set aside by the division bench. The Court held that they were inclined to provide relief to the appellants against their expulsion after serving for almost two decades. The correctness of the reasoning of the Division Bench is not controversial in this matter.
A writ petition was filed by Harvinder Singh later on in 2008 challenging the grounds of these appointments. In 2014, the division bench allowed the writ petition on the basis of the reason that the result of the appellants' examination had been declared only after the last date of receipt of the applications. This ruling from the division bench was assailed before the Supreme Court by Rakesh and Parvinder. It was argued before the apex court that given the flow of time and actions, their services should not be eliminated. They continued to work for nearly two decades and Harvinder Singh was not selected in the process.
Allowing the appeals, the bench further added: "However, having regard to the facts obtaining in this case, which we have set out and also the manner in which this Court has decided the matter culminating in 1997 (4) SCC 18 the interests of justice would require the interference with the judgment of the Division bench."
The Court held that having regard to the efflux of time and his position in the selection, the writ petitioner cannot possibly secure selection if the appellants were ousted from service. The Court while dismissing the said writ petition made no order as to costs.
86540
103860
630
114
59824