Aditya Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr

14. Having thus applied for undertaking the ESSE 2023, some of the appellants also addressed emails to NESTS, requesting that, as the last date for submitting applications stood extended till 19 October 2023, the cut off date for determining eligibility be also extended till then. Ms. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the appellants, has invited our attention to an email dated 29 October 2023 addressed by Akshay Kumar, one of the appellants, to the respondent and the reply dated 30 October 2023 of the respondent thereto, as well as email dated 11 August 2023 from Anushree Sahoo, and the response from the respondent of the same date, thus: E-mail dated 29 October 2023 from Akshay Kumar to the respondents “Dear Sir, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to bring your kind attention towards the cut-off date for determining eligibility criteria for the upcoming ESSE-2023. As per the notification, the cut-off for determining various eligibility criteria (Education qualifications, age limit etc.) was 18/08/2023 i.e, the last date for submission of application. The application form reopens and further it was extended till 19/10/2023 for the participation of more such eligible candidates but there was no any information regarding the extension of cutdate of eligibility criteria. We, the applicants, request you to change the cutoff date to 19-10- 2023 (the last date of submission of application) and release a corrigendum regarding this change on the website. This change will ensure that a broader range of qualified candidates can participate in the recruitment process. We believe that this adjustment aligns with your commitment to providing equal opportunities and a fair evaluation of candidates’ qualifications. Thanking You Sincerely, E-mail dated 30 October 2023 from the respondent to Akshay Kumar Dear Candidate:- You are requested to go through the Information Bulletin Chapter-4 which is available on the website. https://emrs.tribal.gov.in. E-mail dated 11 August 2023 from the Anushree Sahoo to respondent Sir/Madam, I want to apply in TGT-Art, but the final result is not published yet. Can I apply with undertaking & to submit my final result by September

2023. Sincerely Anushree Sahoo From Odisha Phone No. 8114345272 email: anusahoo.rd@gmail.com E-mail dated 11 August 2023 from the respondent to Anushree Sahoo Draft Reply for the post of Principal/PGT/Accountant/JSA/Lab Attendant Draft Reply for the post of TGT/TGT’s Misc./Hostel warden Eligibility Dear Candidate:- Dear Candidate:- Criteria You are requested to go through the Information Bulletin Chapter-4 which is available on the website. https://emrs.tribal.gov.in You are requested to go through the Information Bulletin Chapter-4 which is available on the website. Submission of Application Form You are requested to go through the Information Bulletin on page 25 which is available on the website. You are requested to go through the Information Bulletin Chapter- 2. Which is available on the website. https://tribal.nic.in/

15. The appellants were issued admit cards, on the basis of which they underwent the ESSE 2023 Examination, which was held in December 2023. The results were declared on 22 January 2024. All the appellants figured in the list of provisionally shortlisted candidates, released vide notice of the same date, i.e. 22 January 2024. The appellants were called by NESTS for document verification. However, in the Bio-Data form for PGT and Bio-Data form for TGT, the appellants noticed that the cut-off date for determination for eligibility continued to be specified as 31 July 2023 and 18 August 2023, respectively. It was, in these circumstances, that the appellants decided to approach this Court by means of individual writ petitions, all of which came to be decided by judgment dated 31 January 2025 of the learned Single Judge, against which the appellants have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

16. In their writ petitions, the appellants prayed thus: “In the view of the above facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Note of the Bio Data form for recruitment drive 2023-24 (Annexure 45 & 46) fixing cut-off date as 31.07.2023 for PGT and 18.08.2023 for TGT respectively;

17. The learned Single Judge has, by judgment dated 31 January 2025, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants. He has, in doing so, placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in DSSSB v Uma Shankar Sharma[7]. The learned Single Judge has reproduced paras 2, 11 and 12 of the said decision, which we too deem it appropriate to reproduce:

2013 SCC OnLine Del 1911 which eligibility had to be acquired continued to be March 15,

2010. *****

11. Suffice would it be to state that the consistent view taken by Courts is that if a date is prescribed in an advertisement as the last date by which a qualification has to be obtained, the date being sacrosanct, has to be respected and we may note the reason for the view by reproducing paragraph 10 from the decision of the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan[8] which reads as under: -

1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad v B. Sarat Chandra[9] and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram v M. Tripura Sundari Devi10.”

12. For the reasons recorded by the Division Bench of this Court overruling the view taken by the Tribunal in Preeti Balyan's case and for the law declared by the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi's case (supra) the impugned decision has to be set aside; additionally for the reason that it was for the Staff Selection Board to have notified the last date by which eligibility had to be acquired. Further, the advertisement inviting applications gave a wrong figure pertaining to the vacancies notified to be filled up and the corrigendum simply corrected by disclosing to the candidates the exact number of vacancies proposed to be filled up. An error of notifying the number of vacancies being corrective, it had not to be treated that the original advertisement inviting applications stood superseded. There is no law that eligibility has to always as of the last date by which applications would be received. The date of eligibility has to be clearly spelt out and the same could be any date as per the advertisement inviting applications.” (emphasis supplied)

18. The learned Single Judge has held that, as there was no stipulation, in the Information Bulletins released by the NESTS for the ESSE 2023, to the effect that the cut-off date for determining eligibility and the last date for submitting applications would necessarily coincide, extending of the latter date did not ipso facto result in extending of the former. The e-mail communications, on which Ms. Mazumdar relied both before the learned Single Judge as well as before us, were held by the learned Single Judge not to advance the case of the appellants, to any substantial degree. Paras 27 and 28 of the impugned judgment, which contain the conclusions of the learned Single Judge, read thus:

19. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners in the writ petitions are in appeal before us.

20. We have heard Ms. Mazumder, learned Counsel for the appellants.

21. It is apparent, at plain glance, that the appellants have no legally tenable case. The learned Single Judge has expressed his sympathy with the appellants, and we can do no better.

22. Sympathy can, however, only temper the law; it cannot substitute it. While a writ court has always to act with equity and compassion while discharging its duties, these considerations cannot trump the law. The Court may exercise equity and compassion, but within the legitimate peripheries of law, and not outside it.

23. This may be expressed otherwise, in the hallowed maxim, ubi jus ibi remedium. For a remedy to be available, a right must exist. Sance any enforceable right, there can be no available remedy.

24. The errors in the appellants’ contention may best be manifested by the following averments contained in the synopsis filed with the present appeal, which more or less encapsulate the submissions of the appellants, both before the learned Single Judge as well as before us: “The Respondent No. 2 had released a notification inviting online applications for the recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff for Eklavya Model Residential Schools across the country. For the post of PGT, applications forms were opened on 28.06.2023 and the last date of submission of application form was 31.07.2023. Chapter 3 of the information bulletin for PGT, cut-off date for determining the eligibility was 31.07.2023. For the post of TGT and TGT (PET) opened on 19.07.2023 and the last date of submission of application form was 18.08.2023. Chapter 3 of the information bulletin for TGT and TGT (PET) cut-off date for determining the eligibility was 18.08.2023. The Respondent No. 2 extended the last date of submission of application form for the post of PGT to 18.08.2023 and subsequently another pop-up notification was issued. Consequently, application form for the both the posts were reopened from 13.10.2023 to 19.10.2023. It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellants herein were awaiting their results during the first round of submission of application form but subsequently when the date of application form was extended, they became eligible for applying to the aforesaid post as their results were declared in the meantime. The Respondent No. 2 had simply extended the date of filing of application forms without clarifying the cut-off date for determining the educational qualification for the said posts. As initially when the application form was issued the cut-off date for determining the educational qualification was the last day of submission of application form for the respective posts. Since the Respondent No. 2 had failed to clarify whether the cut-off date for determination of eligibility was also extended, it was deemed to be the last day of submission of application forms, i.e. 19.10.2023.”

25. These passages, which, as already noted, encapsulate the contents, in précis, the submissions of Ms. Mazumdar, suffer from the following errors, of law and fact:

(i) It is contended that, “the appellants herein were awaiting their results during the first round of submission of application form but subsequently, when the date of application form was extended, they became eligible for applying to the aforesaid post as their results declared in the meantime”. This is erroneous. The extension of the last date for submission of application form did not render the appellants eligible for applying to the posts to which they aspired. The terminus ad quem, by which eligibility of the candidates have to be reckoned, never changed. It remained 31st July 2023 for aspirants to the posts of PGT and 18th August 2023 for aspirants to the posts of TGT and Hostel Warden. These dates never changed. Inasmuch as, prior to these dates, none of the appellants was in possession of any degree or certificate, certifying that they had obtained the necessary qualification rendering them eligible for appointment to the posts to which they aspired, even though they had undertaken the concerned examinations prior thereto, they were ipso facto ineligible for appointment to the said posts. The postponement of the last date for submitting applications did not, therefore, render them eligible.

(ii) It is further contended that the NESTS had “simply extended the date of filing of application forms without clarifying the cut-off date for determining the educational qualification for the said posts”. Clarification is required where there is lack of clarity. Clause f in Chapter 3 of the Information Bulletin clearly stated that “the cut-off date for determining various eligibility criteria (educational qualifications, age limit, etc.)” would be 18 August 2023 for TGTs and Hostel Wardens and 31 July 2023 for PGTs and all other posts. Nothing could be clearer. The absence of any “clarification” regarding the cutoff date for determining eligibility qualifications, while extending the last date for submission of application forms, therefore, makes no difference.

(iii) It appears that the appellants were mislead into believing that the cut-off date for determining eligibility qualifications would always coincide with the last date for submitting applications because of the stipulation, in the Note in Chapter 4 of the Information Bulletin, requiring candidates to “have certificate of minimum required qualification at the time submission of application”. Clearly, this clause only required the candidates to be in possession of certificates evidencing satisfaction of the minimum educational qualifications, by the last date for submission of application. That did not mean that the cut-off date for determining eligibility or educational qualifications would automatically be the last date for submission of applications. What the candidates were required to be in possession of, were certificates evidencing that they held the requisite educational qualifications, prior to the cut-off dates stipulated in Clause f in Chapter 3 of the Information Bulletin, on or before the last date for submission of applications.

(iv) At the same time, we cannot but feel that the respondents could have avoided such a situation, and the appellants would also have not been put to needless prejudice, had it been specifically stated, while extending the last date for submission of application forms, that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility qualifications was not being simultaneously extended. Had this been done, much heartache might have been avoided. At the same time, the omission on the part of the respondents, from saying so with the requisite degree of clarity cannot, in our opinion, confer any legally enforceable right on appellants.

(v) The synopsis goes on to state that “when the applications form was issued, the cut-off date for determining the educational qualification was the last date of submission of application form for the respective posts.” Facially, this is correct, but only superficially so. To reiterate a point already made earlier, there was no stipulation, in the Information Bulletins, to the effect that the cut-off date for determining eligibility would invariably coincide with the last date for submission of application forms. That they did so coincide, as originally envisaged in the Information Bulletins, is undoubtedly true. That they would so coincide for all times to come was not, however, an inevitable corollary. It is in believing that, as the last date for submission of application forms and the cut-off date for determining eligibility initially coincided, that they would always coincide in future, and that postponement of one would imply postponement of the other, that the appellants erred. Err, however, they did, and, therefore, they cannot be claimed to be entitled to relief.

(vi) The synopsis goes on to state that, “since the Respondent

2 had failed to clarify whether the cut-off date for determining of eligibility was also extended, it was deemed to be the last date of submission of application forms, i.e. 19 October 2023.” This, again, is an erroneous submission. There was no such deemed extension of the cut-off date for determining eligibility, merely because the last date for submitting applications had been extended. To put it plainly, extension of one did not invariably imply extension of the other.

(vii) The synopsis further asserts that the clauses in Chapter 3, providing for the cut-off date for determining eligibility, and in Chapter 4, providing for the last date for submission of application forms, conflicted with each other. We do not think so. There was, in fact, no such conflict, even if there could have been greater clarity. The cut-off date stipulated in Chapter 3 was to determine eligibility of the candidates for recruitment to the posts to which they aspire. That remained 31 July 2023 for the posts of PGT and 18 August 2023 for the posts of TGT and Hostel Wardens. The date envisaged in Chapter 4 was the last date for submission of applications. That changed, from 31 July 2023 for the post of PGT and 18 August 2023 for the post of TGT and Hostel Wardens, to 19 October 2023 in both cases. Inasmuch as there was no stipulation, in the Information Bulletins or elsewhere, that these two dates would coincide, the appellants are obviously in error in contending that there was any conflict.

26. We are also in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the e-mails, on which Ms. Mazumdar placed reliance, do not advance her case to any extent. They merely called upon the appellants to refer to the Information Bulletin, for answers they sought. They do not, in any manner of speaking, hold out that the cut-off date for determining eligibility stood extended simultaneously with the extension of the last date for submitting applications, or that any such simultaneous extension was envisaged in the Information Bulletin. The responses from the NESTS are, in fact, clearly non-committal in nature.

27. Ms. Mazumdar has placed reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Patna in Satish Kumar v UOI11, the High Court of Bombay in Shrikant v State of Maharashtra12 and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Akash Goyal v State of Haryana13. (2022) 2 PLJR 61 (2016) 5 Mah LJ 382 Judgment dated 23 February 2023 in CWP 16736/2017 (O&M)

28. We have perused the said decisions.

29. Ms. Mazumdar is correct in her submission that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, through a learned Single Judge, has observed thus:

30. With greatest respect, we are unable to express our agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The observation that, once the last date for submission of application forms for appointment stood extended from time to time, the last extended date for submission of application shall be considered as cut-off date for all intents and purposes including the educational qualifications possessed by the applicants, in our view, is not supported by any sound legal principle known to law. In the facts of the case before her, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana deemed it appropriate to so hold. We cannot, however, treat this as a correct exposition of the position in law, as would constitute a precedent for future cases.

31. Satish Kumar was, on the other hand, a case in which the High Court of Patna has, in paras 19 and 20, noted thus:

32. There can be no cavil with the legal position set out in the afore-extracted paragraphs from Satish Kumar. If no cut-off date for acquiring educational qualifications, or attaining eligibility, is stipulated in the concerned advertisement, a Court may legitimately treat the last for submission of applications as the cut-off date for acquiring eligibility. Where, however, as in the instant case, a separately stipulated cut-off date for acquiring eligibility exists, no such presumption is available.

33. In Shrikant, similarly, it is specifically noted, in para 10, thus:

Shrikant, therefore, was also a case in which there was no stipulated cut-off date for obtaining eligibility or acquiring educational qualifications.

34. The decisions on which Ms. Mazumdar places reliance are, therefore, to our considered opinion, of no avail.

35. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v UOI15, emphasized the sanctity of a cut-off date, thus:

36. Thus, where the advertisement stipulates a cut-off date, that date is, to all intents and purposes, sacred. It can be called into question only if it is in conflict with existing recruitment rules or any other statutory prescription or proscription.

37. The appellants have not sought to build up any such case. Their only case is that, with the extension of the last date for submitting applications to 19 October 2023, they believed that the cut-off date for acquiring eligibility/educational qualifications also stood extended till 19 October 2023.

38. The belief may have been bona fide, but it was mistaken. It does not flow from either expressly or by necessary implication, from the provisions of the Information Bulletin. Conclusion

39. We, therefore, are in entire agreement with the learned Single Judge that the appellants were not eligible for the post to which they aspired, and for which they had undertaken the ESSE.

40. The writ petitions were, therefore, rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

41. The same fate must visit these appeals which are also, therefore, dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J. AJAY DIGPAUL, J. FEBRUARY 21, 2025 ar Click here to check corrigendum, if any