Manju Bala vs Union Of India & Anr.
1999 Latest Caselaw 674 Del

ORDER

Arun Kumar, J.

1. The question for consideration before the Full Bench is:

2. What should be the cut off date for purposes of acquiring qualifications for eligibility for purposes of employment to a particular post ? As a corollary another question which arises for consideration is as to whether the court should go into the question of reasonableness or appropriateness of a particular cut off date fixed by the authorities conducting recruitment to the service.

3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were seeking employment to the post of Assistant Teachers and Nursery Teachers in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Staff Selection Commission (for short SSC) was entrusted with the task of making the recruitment. Accordingly an advertisement was issued by the SSC in September 1992. The last date for receipt of application forms from candidates was 12th October 1992. The written examination was to be held on 7th February 1993. The advertisement prescribed the age limit as 18-30 years as on 1st January, 1993 which was relaxable in case of certain categories. So far as educational qualifications is concerned, the advertisement provided that the candidates who had yet to appear at the academic/certificate examination or whose result had been withheld or not declared on or before 1st January, 1993, were not eligible. The petitioners had appeared for their B.Ed, examination conducted by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in May 1992. Their results were declared on 15th January, 1993. Therefore as per the advertisement the petitioners were not eligible for the posts. The petitioners have challenged the fixation of 1st January, 1993 as the cut off date for the purpose of acquiring academic qualifications as arbitrary. It is submitted that fixation of 1st January 1993 as the cut off date has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved in fixing such a date and thus it is wholly arbitrary. The petitioners have relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kanta Rani & Ors Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., . When this matter came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court, the Bench felt that the judgemet in Kanta Rani's case required to be reconsidered and, therefore, this reference was made to the Full Bench.

4. We have carefully considered the decision of this court in Kanta Rani's case (supra). Strictly speaking the said decision need not be considered as binding precedent because the finding of arbitrariness in fixing 1st August, 1988 as the cut off date in the said case was based on the peculiar facts of the case. To appreciate this it is necessary to note the relevant dates in Kanta Rani's case. The examination with respect to academic qualifications which was necessary for purpose of eligibility was held in April 1988. The result of the examination was declared on 17th August, 1988. The advertisement for recruitment to the posts in question was issued on 17th September, 1988. The last date for submitting the applications by the prospective candidates was fixed as 10th October 1988. The cut off date for purposes of acquiring the academic/eligible qualification was fixed as 1st August, 1988. In these facts the Bench followed the decision rendered by another Division Bench while dismissing in limine a write petition having same facts and holding that cut off date 1st August, 1988 was arbitrary.

5. As a matter of fact in view of the earlier decision holding the cut off date 1st August, 1988 as arbitrary, the Division Bench deciding Kanta Rani's case took the view that it was not open for it to decide the question of arbitrariness of the cut off date afresh. Thus the decision in Kanta Rani's case only relies on the observations reading arbitrariness of the said cut off date made in A.K. Dhull & Anr. Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. C. W. No. 2306 of 1988, decided on 4th November, 1988.

6. It appears that while holding 1st August, 1988 as an arbitrary date, it must have weighed with the Court that when the advertisement for recruitment itself was issued in September 1988 and the last date for submitting the applications was 10th October, 1988, fixing 1st August, 1988 as the cut off date for acquiring qualifications had no nexus with the object.

7. In the case in hand the scenario is totally different. The cut off date for purposes of acquiring the academic qualifications necessary for eligibility is 1st January, 1993 which is long after the last date for submitting the applications. The advertisement for recruitment was issued in September, 1992. The last date for submitting the applications was 12th October, 1992. The petitioners had appeared in the examination for purposes of acquiring the academic eligibility qualifications in May, 1992. They could acquire the qualifications upto 1st January, 1993. This provides a long gap of seven months. The petitioners in these facts cannot complain that the cut off date is arbitrary. If for any peculiar reasons of its own, the University where the petitioner had appeared for the examination for purposes of acquiring the academic qualification, could not declare the results on time, the petitioners cannot blame the entire system. Some cut off date has got to be fixed in such matters. Someone or the other is bound to have a grievance when the recruitment is open to a wide spectrum of candidates. Therefore, in such matters the test cannot be whether the cut off date fixed was reasonable or any other date could have been better. The test can only be as to whether the fixation of the cut off date in question is arbitrary. As a matter of fact the court can only go into the question of arbitrariness in fixing a cut off date and nothing more.

8. The authorities who conduct the recruitment are best suited to fix the various dates and the time schedule. In the present case it is the SSC which was conducting the recruitment. The SSC has been undertaking this task for various organisations year after year and has lot of experience in the matter. One can reasonably take it that the dates fixed by the Commission in this behalf are based on past experience in conducting the recruitments. In such matters the question of malafide does not arise and therefore, post experience is the best guide. The SSC has filed an affidavit in the present case, the relevant portion is reproduced as under :-

"In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the cut off date of 1.1.1993 fixed by the Respondent No. 2 for making a person eligible to appear in the selection test of Asstt. Teachers (Gen. & Urdu) and Nursery Teachers for the M.C.D. on the ground that this cut-off date is unreasonable and arbitrary and she should be declared as an eligible candidate for this selection in spite of the fact that her result of B.Ed. was declared by M.D. University Rohtak on 15.1.93. The petitioner has been by virtue of ad-interim order of this Hon'ble Court, permitted to appear in the interview test. However, the result of the same has not been declared as yet.

It may be pertinent to mention here that before 1987, the Staff selection Commission viz., the Respondent No. 2 had for the purpose of determination of educational qualification of a candidate, fixed the last date of application for a particular examination/interview/selection process, as the date of eligibility for appearing in that perticularly examination/interview/selection. However, since there were number of representations received from various quarters that this restricted the area of selection and moreover some of the Universities declare their results late, on account of this reason, the candidates, who otherwise would have eligible, are made ineligible on account of closure of the eligibility on the last date of application. In this context the entire matter was studied and a conscious decision was taken for determining the eligibility on educational qualification of a candidate. This was accordingly brought in line with the norms fixed regarding the determination of age of a candidate, by the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms. The Govt. of India vide its office Memorandum No. 42013/1/79-

Estt, (D) dated 4th Dec. 1979, fixed the following cut-off dates for the purpose of determining the age of a candidate to appear in a perticular examination :

(a) 1st January of the year, in which the examination is held if the examination is held in the first half of the year and; the

(b) 1st August of the year in which the examination is held if the examination is held in the second half of the year.

The cut-off date as prescribed above is being strictly applied in all the open Competitive examinations held by Staff Selection Commission since July, 1987 and this system is working smoothly. In the circumstances it is not considered necessary to make any change in the cut-off date.

Coming back to the facts of the present case, the Respondent No. 2 has accordingly fixed the eligibility conditions as on 1.1.1993 in case examination is held in the first half of a calendar year and 1.8.1993 as the cut-off date in case the examination is held in the later half of the calendar year. This has been done keeping in view the fact that some of the Universities declare their results late. This classification is reasonable and meets all the tests laid down under Art, 14 of the Constitution and cannot be said to be arbitrary in any manner. For these reasons, the cutoff date of 1.1.1993 fixed by the Respondent No. 2 is perfectly legal and justified and hence the petition deserves dismissal."

9. A perusal of the above statement made on behalf of the SSC shows that here was a basis for fixing 1st January, 1993 as the cut off date. The date coincides with the cut off date with respect to age of the candidates. If one fixes any other date, the same will also be open to challenge on same or similar grounds. In matters of fixing c ut off dates there may not be any hard and fast rule and the decision of the recruitment agency based on past experience is best. The affidavit of the SSC referred to above contains ample justification for adopting the date in question as the cut off date.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to certain observations made by the Supreme Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., . In this case the fixation of cut off date with respect to age of candidates was in question. Most of the relevant service rules provided that the cut off date for deciding the minimum age prescribed for a candidate for appointment will be the first day of January following the date of application. The affected candidates contended that such a cut off date which was uniformly fixed under all service Rules of the State of Rajasthan was arbitrary and unreasonable and must be struck down. The court emphasised that fixing of a cut off date can be considered as arbitrary only if it can be looked upon as highly capricious or whimsical. It was observed; "unless the date is grossly unreasonable the court will be unlikely to strike off the cut off date".

11. Further it was observed :-

"It was, however, strenuously urged before us that the only acceptable cut-off date is the last date for receipt of applications under a given advertisement. Undoubtedly, this can be a possible cut-off date. But there is no basis for urging that this is the only reasonable cut-off date. Even such a date is liable to question in given circumstances. In the first place, making a cut-off date dependent on the last date for receiving applications, makes it more subject to vagaries of the department concerned, making it dependent on the date when each department issues an advertisement, and the date which each department concerned fixes as the last date for receiving applications. A person who may fall on the wrong side of such a cut-off date may well contend that the cut-off date is unfair, since the advertisement could have been issued earlier; or in the alternative that the cut-off date could have been fixed later at the point of selection or appointment. Such an argument is always open, irrespective of the cut-off date fixed and the manner in which it is fixed. That is why this court has said in the case of Union of India Vs. Parmeswaran Match Works, and later cases that the cut-off date is valid unless it is so capricious or whimsical as to be wholly unreasonable. To say that the only cut-off date can be the last date for receiving applications, appears to be without any basis. In our view the cut-off date which is fixed in the present case with reference to the beginning of the calendar year following the date of application, cannot be considered as capricious or unreasonable. On the contrary, it is less prone to vagaries and is less uncertain."

12. In State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ramjee Prasad & Ors., , in a some what similar situations it was held :-

"In the present case as pointed out earlier the past practice was to fix the last date for receipt of applications a month or one and a half months after the date of actual publication of the advertisement. Following the past practice the State Government fixed the last date for receipt of applications as January 31, 1988. Those who had completed the required experience of three years by that date were, therefore, eligible to apply for the posts in question. The respondents and some of the intervenors who were not completing the required experience by that date, therefore, challenged the fixation of the last date as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is obvious that in fixing the last date as January 31, 1988 the State Government had only followed the past practice and if the High Court's attention had been invited to this fact it would perhaps have refused to interfere since its interference is based on the erroneous belief that the past practice was to fix June 30 of the relevant year as the last date for receipt of applications. Except for leaning on a past practice the High Court has not assigned any reasons for its choice of the date. As pointed out by this Court the choice of date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the same unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical or wide off the reason able mark. The choice of the date for advertising the posts had to depend on several factors, e.g. the number of vacancies in different disciplines, the need to fill up the posts, the availability of candidates, etc. It is not the case of anyone that experienced candidates were not available in sufficient numbers on the cut-off date. Merely because the respondents and some others would qualify for appointment if the last date for receipt of applications is shifted from January, 31, 1988 to June, 30 1988 is no reason for dubbing the earlier date as arbitrary or irrational."

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the cut off Date should have been either of the following three :-

(1) the last date of submission of application forms ;

(2) the date of written examination for recruitment ;

(3) the date for interview.

14. In our view all the above dates are prone to some criticism or the other. As observed by the Supreme Court in the judgment noted above the test is as to whether the cut off date fixed is too much off the mark or is whimsical. The cut off date fixed in the present case can neither be said to be whimsical nor it can be said to be too much off the mark. The cut off date in question coincides with the cut off date with respect to age. It is based on past experience and has been fixed after taking into consideration the complaints of the candidates in the previous years. It is widely known that so far as the SSC is concerned, the cut off dates are normally fixed as 1st August or 1st January each year. It has become a matter of general knowledge with the candidates aspiring to participate in such recruitments held year after year. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the SCC 1, to which reference has been made herein above, leaves no scope for the contention that the cut off date in question is arbitrary or whimsical. So far as Kanta Rani's case (supra) is concerned, we have already observed that the cut off date held to be arbitrary in the said case was not the same which is in question in the present batch of petitions. In that case the cut off date was a date which was even prior to the date of advertisement for recruitment and the last date of submission of the applications as per the advertisement. 1st August, 1988 was held to be arbitrary in that background in Kanta Rani's case. When all the relevant dates and their sequence is different in the present batch of cases, the judgment in Kanta Rani's case cannot be said to be a precedent for holding 1st January, 1993 as an arbitrary cut off date. In the facts of the present case we are of the view that 1st January, 1993 as a cut off date cannot be found fault with. It cannot be said to be an arbitrary cut off date.

15. We find no merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. The petitions are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.