Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Eligibility Criteria for Village Development Officers Recruitment In UP

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad regarding the eligibility criteria for the recruitment of Village Development Officers. The case revolved around the claims of appellants who were seeking recruitment in this role but faced rejection due to questions regarding their Ex-Servicemen status and possession of a C.C.C. Certificate.

The Supreme Court's judgment, delivered by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, emphasized the importance of adhering to eligibility criteria as per the terms of the recruitment advertisement. The Court stated, “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.”

The dispute centered around whether the appellants qualified as Ex-Servicemen at the time of the advertisement. The State argued that they were ineligible due to their continued employment in the Armed Forces. Additionally, the appellants were criticized for not possessing the essential qualification of a C.C.C. Certificate on the date of the advertisement.

Justice Amanullah reiterated the established legal principle that eligibility should be assessed as of the last date of application submission, unless extended by the recruiting authority. The Court pointed out, “Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution.”

The Supreme Court's decision, while dismissing the appeal for lack of merit, also clarified that any payments made to the appellants for the period they worked as Village Development Officers would not be recovered.

This verdict serves as a reminder of the significance of following recruitment advertisement criteria and cut-off dates, ensuring fairness and equality in the selection process.

 

Date of Decision: October 30, 2023

SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Similar News