IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2407 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Rakesh Kumar Pandey S/O Shri Ram Sarobar Pandey R/O Vill.- Kora,P.S.--Bharwara,Dist.- Darbhanga. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources Department (Department Of Education), C.Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Vice-Chancellor,Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University (Established) Under The Auspices Of The Ministry Of Human Resources Development ,Govt. Of India),56-57 Institutional Area, Jansakpuri, New Delhi. 3. The Chairman ,Managing Committee, Rajkumari Ganesh Sharma Sanskrit Vidyapith,Kalhanta Patori, P.S.-Bishanpur,Dist.-Darbhanga. 4. The Principal, Rajkumari Ganesh Sharma Sanskrit Vidyapith, Kolhanta Patori, P.S.-Bishanpur, Dist.-Darbhanga. 5. Brajesh Kumar S/O Shri Ram Lakhan Roy R/O Vill.- Laugain, P.S.- Amarpur, Dist.- Banka. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate For Union of India : Mr Hemant Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent no.5 : Mr Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate Dr Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, Advocate Mr Yogendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== 3 16-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, leaned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the private respondent/ writ petitioner. 2. The Writ Court has allowed the prayer of the respondent writ petitioner by the order under appeal and has set aside the selection of the appellant (respondent no.5 before the Writ Court) on the ground that he was lacking essential qualification for Patna High Court LPA No.1268 of 2010 (3) dt.16-12-2011 2 appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Raj Kumari Ganesh Sharma Sanskrit Vidyapeeth run by Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India. 3. There is no dispute on facts and even on the basic issue of law that the essential qualification must be fulfilled by the candidates on the last date specified for receipt of applications in terms of the advertisement notice. Out of the two essential qualifications the first qualification of Master Degree or degrees equivalent in the subject concerned was possessed by the writ petitioner as well as the appellant but they did not have the second essential qualification or degree or diploma in Training/ Education. The second qualification was relaxable for those, who either had Ph. D degree in the subject concerned or had passed Higher Secondary, Graduation and Post Graduate examinations in first class and if they could do B. Ed./ B.T. within a period of three years from the date of joining. On account of first class in the required examinations the writ petitioner was entitled to relaxation in respect of second essential qualification noticed above but the appellant admittedly did not have Ph. D. degree till the last date fixed by the advertisement for receipt of applications. He admittedly acquired this degree only a few days before the date of interview. Patna High Court LPA No.1268 of 2010 (3) dt.16-12-2011 3 4. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that in the case of Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana : AIR 1978 SC 1536, the Apex Court held the appointment of a government employee on a particular post to be irregular but not void because subsequently that employee had completed the necessary period of experience. In our view, since that case did not relate to recruitment through an open advertisement hence, the error committed by the authorities in appointing a government servant on the higher post was held to be only an irregularity. 5. On behalf of the appellant reliance has also been placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan : 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 for the purpose of highlighting that even after holding that the required educational qualification must be fulfilled on the last date for preferring application and not on the date of selection, the Apex Court did not interfere with the appointment of selected candidates. Paragraph 10 of that judgment reflects the ratio of law decided in that case that in absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/ notification inviting applications, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making applications. The reasons for not interfering with the selection are mentioned in paragraph 11. Besides the fact that the Patna High Court LPA No.1268 of 2010 (3) dt.16-12-2011 4 appointees had worked for almost eight years, the Apex Court found that in absence of any record to show as to how the selection committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits of the candidates and to relax the minimum qualification in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary powers available under the University Ordinance, interference may result in injustice to those who had been selected. Such reason was available in that case on account of facts mentioned in paragraph 4 of the judgment which show that selection committee could relax the qualification on certain considerations. However, after the said judgment laid down the law in clear terms, the Apex Court has consistently held that in case a candidate does not fulfill the requisite qualification by the last date fixed for filing applications, he/she would be ineligible or unqualified for selection. Reference for this proposition may be made to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission: (2011) 9 SCC 438 upon which learned counsel for the private respondent has placed reliance. In this judgment several earlier judgments of the Apex Court have been discussed and relied upon in support of the aforesaid proposition according to which appellant had to be held as disqualified not having the minimum eligibility in educational qualification. Patna High Court LPA No.1268 of 2010 (3) dt.16-12-2011 5 6. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)