"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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