Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |    

Interpretation of Advertisement - Upholds UPSC’s Eligibility Criteria in Recruitment Process: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court has upheld the Union Public Service Commission’s (UPSC) eligibility criteria in a recruitment process for the post of Principal under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The case revolved around the determination of the cut-off date for eligibility, which had become a point of contention.

The High Court observed that the UPSC had initially issued an advertisement on April 24, 2021, with a closing date of May 13, 2021, for the recruitment process. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the advertisement was reissued on July 10, 2021, with a new closing date of July 29, 2021. The key issue was whether the eligibility criteria should be considered as of May 13, 2021, or July 29, 2021.

The Court emphasized the UPSC’s intent to protect the eligibility of candidates who were eligible on May 13, 2021, as some candidates might become ineligible by July 29, 2021, due to factors such as age. The Court upheld the UPSC’s determination that eligibility should be based on the May 13, 2021 date.

In its ruling, the High Court set aside the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed the UPSC to consider eligibility as of July 29, 2021, based on a clause in the advertisement. The Court found that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the advertisement clauses and affirmed the UPSC’s stance.

This decision underscores the importance of clarity and consistency in recruitment processes, particularly when changes are made due to unforeseen circumstances such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

Key Observation:

“The intent of the UPSC appears to be as the initial advertisement could not be taken forward due to Covid-19, on readvertisement, it is only the last date of receipt of applications is fixed as July 29, 2021, with other conditions remaining unchanged.”

“The Court observed that the intent of the UPSC was to protect the eligibility of candidates as of May 13, 2021, given that some candidates who were eligible on May 13, 2021, might become ineligible by July 29, 2021, due to age or other factors.”

This ruling provides clarity on eligibility criteria in recruitment processes and underscores the importance of adhering to the specified cut-off dates.

Date of Decision:  01 November 2023

 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS KAILASH PRASAD & ORS.         

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/01_Nov_2023_UPSC_Vs_Kailash-Del.pdf"]

Similar News