CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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

Latest Legal News