VARUN KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reason why a cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met and cannot be ignored in an individual case is that there may be other persons who may have applied, had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others. (See AIR 1998 SC 91 State of Rajasthan Vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt). Stating the same, but with a different facit, is 1990 (3) SCC 655, District Collector & Chairman Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential Society Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi: when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are variable.

(2.) Would the aforesaid reasoning and consequently the principle apply where the advertisement inviting applications does not require the qualification in praesenti, acquiring the qualification by a future date being stipulated. Prima-facie not. But in such a situation, other problems may arise. In 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors., the Supreme Court noted the said related problems as under:-

(3.) The positive side and attainment of public good when requirement relating to qualifications are postponed to a future date was noted by the Supreme Court in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611, Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekher & Anr.:-