LEGAL ISSUE: Whether individuals employed in the Armed Forces on the last date for application submission can be considered as Ex-Servicemen for recruitment purposes.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Sudhir Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
Judgment Date: 30 October 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 30 October 2023
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2023 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.12441 OF 2022)
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can individuals who are still serving in the Armed Forces on the last date for submitting job applications be considered as ex-servicemen for recruitment purposes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the recruitment of Village Development Officers in Uttar Pradesh. The Court clarified that the eligibility of a candidate as an ex-serviceman is determined by their status on the last date of application, not on a later date when they might be released from service. This judgment has significant implications for those seeking government jobs under the ex-servicemen quota. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Case Background
The appellants, Sudhir Singh, Ashok Kumar Tiwari, and Raj Kumar Yadav, were serving in the Armed Forces when the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (the Commission) issued an advertisement for the recruitment of Village Development Officers. The application process began on January 18, 2016, and closed on February 10, 2016. The appellants applied under the Ex-Servicemen category, having obtained No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) from their respective employers. Initially, their results were withheld, but they were eventually issued temporary appointment letters in May 2019. However, the District Development Officer, Badaun, issued show-cause notices in February 2020, questioning their eligibility as ex-servicemen since they were still employed in the Armed Forces on the last date of application. The notices also raised concerns about their lack of a Course of Computer Concept (C.C.C.) Certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT. Consequently, their appointments were declared null and void in April and May 2020.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 18 January 2016 | Registration for Village Development Officer posts begins. |
| 10 February 2016 | Last date for submission of application forms. |
| 31 July 2016 | Appellant no. 1 released from Armed Forces. |
| 30 November 2016 | Appellant no. 2 released from Armed Forces. |
| 29 February 2016 | Appellant no. 3 released from Armed Forces. |
| 26 December 2018 | Appellants asked to appear before the Commission with documents. |
| May 2019 | Appellants issued temporary appointment letters. |
| February 2020 | Show-cause notices issued to appellants regarding eligibility. |
| April-May 2020 | Orders issued declaring appellants’ appointments null and void. |
| 05 March 2022 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismisses the petition filed by the appellants. |
| 30 October 2023 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants initially filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4817 of 2020 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the orders that declared their appointments to be null and void. The High Court dismissed their petition on 05.03.2022, upholding the decision of the authorities that the appellants did not meet the eligibility criteria for ex-servicemen at the time of application. The High Court also concurred with the authorities on the issue of the appellants not possessing the C.C.C. Certificate. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was converted into a Civil Appeal.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the term “Ex-Servicemen” in the context of government job recruitments. The advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (the Commission) specified that only Ex-Servicemen were eligible to apply for the post of Village Development Officer. The legal framework also includes the rules and regulations governing the recruitment process, which stipulate that eligibility is determined as of the last date for submission of application forms. The Court also considered the requirement of a C.C.C. Certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT, which was an essential qualification for the advertised post.
Arguments
Submissions by the Appellants:
- The appellants contended that the show-cause notices were erroneous on both grounds. They argued that the authorities had accepted their documents, indicating they possessed the necessary qualifications.
- They submitted that their appointment should be considered from the date of the appointment letters (May 2019), by which time they had been released from the Armed Forces. Specifically, appellant no.1 was released on 31.07.2016, appellant no.2 on 30.11.2016, and appellant no.3 on 29.02.2016.
- Regarding the C.C.C. Certificate, they argued that their higher qualifications and equivalent qualifications should suffice. They claimed the Commission had recommended their appointments based on these grounds.
Submissions by the State & its Functionaries:
- The State argued that the appellants were ineligible because they were not Ex-Servicemen on the last date of the advertisement.
- They contended that the appellants did not possess the C.C.C. Certificate on the date of the advertisement and had concealed this fact.
- The State asserted that the appellants’ claim to be considered as Ex-Servicemen on the date of appointment was against the settled principle of law, which requires eligibility to be determined on the last date of application.
- The State also pointed out that the NOC issued to appellant no.1 stated that he was eligible for civil appointment only after a specific date, which was beyond the last date for application. The State argued that the NOC did not automatically qualify him as an ex-serviceman.
- The State further argued that the appellants’ conduct indicated fraud, as they attempted to take posts meant for unemployed Ex-Servicemen while still employed in the Armed Forces.
| Appellants’ Submissions | State’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| Show-cause notices were erroneous. | Appellants were ineligible as they were not Ex-Servicemen on the last date of advertisement. |
| Appointment should be considered from the date of appointment letters when they were released from the Armed Forces. | Appellants did not possess the required C.C.C. Certificate on the date of the advertisement. |
| Higher qualifications and equivalent qualifications should suffice for the C.C.C. Certificate. | Claim to be considered Ex-Servicemen on the date of appointment is against settled law. |
| NOC did not automatically qualify them as Ex-Servicemen. | |
| Appellants’ conduct indicated fraud. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for adjudication:
- Whether the appellants, who were serving in the Armed Forces on the last date for submission of application forms, could be considered as Ex-Servicemen for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Village Development Officer.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellants, who were serving in the Armed Forces on the last date for submission of application forms, could be considered as Ex-Servicemen for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Village Development Officer. | The Court held that the appellants could not be considered as Ex-Servicemen because they were still in service on the last date of application. The Court emphasized that eligibility is determined by the cut-off date, which is the last date of application submission, and not by a later date when the appellants were released from service. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58 – The Court reiterated that eligibility is determined by the last date of application submission, and granting benefits to those not eligible on that date would violate the principle of equality.
- Dr M V Nair v Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429 – This case was cited to support the principle that basic qualifications must be assessed as of the last date for submission of application forms.
- Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 – This case was also used to reinforce the importance of the cut-off date for eligibility.
- Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262 – This case further supported the view that basic qualifications are to be judged as on the last date of submission of application forms.
- State of Gujarat v Arvindkumar T Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 – This case was cited to reiterate the principle that eligibility is determined by the last date of application.
- Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 – The Court highlighted that the date of selection is uncertain, and the last date for making applications is the only certain date for scrutiny of qualifications.
- State of Bihar v Madhu Kant Ranjan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1262 – The Court reaffirmed that a candidate must comply with all eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Dr M V Nair v Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| State of Gujarat v Arvindkumar T Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| State of Bihar v Madhu Kant Ranjan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1262 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
Judgment
| Appellants’ Submissions | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Show-cause notices were erroneous. | Rejected. The Court found no error in the show-cause notices. |
| Appointment should be considered from the date of appointment letters when they were released from the Armed Forces. | Rejected. The Court held that eligibility is determined by the last date of application, not the date of appointment. |
| Higher qualifications and equivalent qualifications should suffice for the C.C.C. Certificate. | Rejected. The Court noted the advertisement clearly specified the C.C.C. Certificate as an essential qualification and the appellants failed to demonstrate equivalence. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58 | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that eligibility is determined by the last date of application submission, and granting benefits to those not eligible on that date would violate the principle of equality. |
| Dr M V Nair v Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429 | The Court cited this case to support the principle that basic qualifications must be assessed as of the last date for submission of application forms. |
| Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 | The Court used this case to reinforce the importance of the cut-off date for eligibility. |
| Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262 | The Court cited this case to further support the view that basic qualifications are to be judged as on the last date of submission of application forms. |
| State of Gujarat v Arvindkumar T Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 | The Court cited this case to reiterate the principle that eligibility is determined by the last date of application. |
| Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 | The Court highlighted that the date of selection is uncertain, and the last date for making applications is the only certain date for scrutiny of qualifications. |
| State of Bihar v Madhu Kant Ranjan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1262 | The Court reaffirmed that a candidate must comply with all eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal principle that eligibility for a post is determined by the criteria as of the cut-off date, which is the last date for application submission. The Court emphasized that this principle is crucial to maintain fairness and equality in the recruitment process. The Court also considered the practical implications of allowing candidates to be considered ex-servicemen prospectively, noting that it would be unfair to those who did not apply because they were not eligible on the cut-off date. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the terms of the advertisement, which clearly stated that only ex-servicemen were eligible to apply. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the appellants did not possess the C.C.C. certificate, which was an essential qualification for the post.
| Reason | Sentiment Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to the cut-off date for eligibility | 40% |
| Fairness and equality in recruitment process | 30% |
| Adherence to the terms of the advertisement | 20% |
| Non-possession of the C.C.C. certificate | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
Advertisement for Village Development Officer Posts
Last date for application submission: 10 February 2016
Appellants were serving in Armed Forces on 10 February 2016
Appellants not considered Ex-Servicemen as of the cut-off date
Appellants’ appointments declared null and void
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as considering the appellants as ex-servicemen from the date of their release from the Armed Forces. However, this interpretation was rejected because it would violate the principle that eligibility must be determined by the cut-off date. The Court also noted that the appellants did not possess the C.C.C. certificate, which was an essential qualification.
The Court concluded that the appellants were not eligible for appointment as Village Development Officers because they were not ex-servicemen on the last date for submission of application forms and did not possess the C.C.C. certificate. The Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The Court provided the following reasons for the decision:
- The basic question of eligibility has to be determined on the basis of the cut-off date, which is the last date of submission of application forms.
- None of the appellants were ex-servicemen at the time of the advertisement as they were still in service.
- There is no concept of serving personnel being deemed ex-servicemen from a prospective date.
- Granting any benefit to the appellants would violate the doctrine of equality.
- The appellants did not possess the essential C.C.C. certificate.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“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.”
“The contention that the required qualifications 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.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- Eligibility for government jobs under the ex-servicemen quota is determined by the candidate’s status on the last date of application submission.
- Serving personnel cannot be considered ex-servicemen prospectively, even if they are due to be released from service soon.
- Candidates must possess all essential qualifications, including certificates, by the cut-off date.
- The principle of equality requires that all candidates be treated equally, and those who were not eligible on the cut-off date cannot be given special consideration.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the terms of the advertisement and the established legal principles governing recruitment processes.
This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving the recruitment of ex-servicemen. It clarifies that the cut-off date is the crucial factor in determining eligibility and that no exceptions can be made for those who were not ex-servicemen on that date. This decision will likely be used as a precedent in similar cases, ensuring consistency and fairness in the recruitment process.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that any payments made to the appellants for the period they actually worked as Village Development Officers should not be recovered. If any such recoveries had already been made, they were to be returned to the appellants forthwith.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the eligibility of a candidate for a government job, particularly under the ex-servicemen quota, is strictly determined by their status on the last date for submission of application forms. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new legal principles. It clarifies that no exceptions can be made for those who were not ex-servicemen on the cut-off date, even if they were released from service later.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, upholding the decision of the High Court. The Court ruled that the appellants were not eligible for appointment as Village Development Officers because they were not ex-servicemen on the last date for submission of application forms and did not possess the required C.C.C. certificate. The judgment reinforces the principle that eligibility for government jobs is determined by the cut-off date, and no exceptions can be made for those who do not meet the criteria on that date. The Court also directed that any payments made to the appellants for the period they worked should not be recovered and any recoveries already made should be returned.
Category
Parent category: Service Law
Child categories: Recruitment Rules, Ex-Servicemen, Eligibility Criteria, Cut-off Date
Parent category: Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission
Child category: Village Development Officer
FAQ
- Q: Can I apply for a government job under the ex-servicemen quota if I am still serving in the Armed Forces?
- A: No, you must be released from the Armed Forces on or before the last date for submission of application forms to be considered an ex-serviceman.
- Q: What is the cut-off date for eligibility in government job recruitments?
- A: The cut-off date is typically the last date for submission of application forms, unless otherwise specified by the recruiting authority.
- Q: Can I be considered an ex-serviceman if I am due to retire or be released from service soon?
- A: No, you must be an ex-serviceman on the cut-off date to be eligible for the quota.
- Q: What if I have higher qualifications than what is required for the post?
- A: You must still possess all essential qualifications, including certificates, as specified in the advertisement by the cut-off date.
- Q: What happens if I am selected for a job but later found to be ineligible?
- A: Your appointment may be declared null and void, and you may be asked to return any payments made to you.
Source: Sudhir Singh vs State of UP