RAMA CHOWDARY V Vs. UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5770 of 1988 is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the respondents in this Writ Appeal. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the appellant as "the petitioner" in this pronouncement of ours.

(2.) Both the petitioner and the third respondent were in the services of the first respondent as "Professional Assistants". An advertisement was made by the first respondent on 5-10-1985 calling for applications for the post of 'Assistant Librarian', hereinafter referred to as 'the post'. The last date for the receipt of the applications was notified as 19-11-1985. The qualifications and experience criteria for the post were notified as follows:-

(3.) That the eligibility criteria must be satisfied either on the date of the application or on the last date for the receipt of the applications or on any cut off date indicated therefor, and if a candidate or an applicant did not satisfy the eligibility criteria on the relevant date, his selection cannot be upheld is a proposition countenanced by a number of pronouncements of the Apex Court. Apart from the pronouncements of the Apex Court, there is also a pronouncement of a Bench of this Court. The pronouncements of the Apex Court are reported as follows:- Principal, King George's Medical College vs. Vishan Kumar; A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Sarat Chandra; District Collector & Chairman vs. M.T, Sundari Devi; Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan & others; Dr. M.V. Nair vs. Union of India; U.P.P.S.C. vs. Alpana. The pronouncement of the Bench of this Court is reported in S.B. Dwarakanath vs. R. Dilip Kumar. We had occasion to recapitulate the ratio settled by the pronouncements referred to above in a recent verdict of ours in Writ Appeal Nos. 5 and 79 of 1993 by judgment dated 7-2-1994 and we have adopted and applied the ratio to the facts of the case dealt with by us there.