Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalita Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20725
1 WP-4857-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 8 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4857 of 2013
LALITA BHARGAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.K.Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):
"(i) That respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to
consider the name of the petitioner in the selection
process for the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II."
(ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to extend
the similar relief of consideration which they have
extended to the other similar situated candidates.
(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High
Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition."
2. The respondents had conducted the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-
II Eligibility Examination, 2011, in which the petitioner participated. The
result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 31.07.2011 (Annexure
P/2). On the basis of the aforesaid examination, document verification for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20725
2 WP-4857-2013
employment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II was conducted
from 11.03.2013 to 17.03.2013, for which a notification was issued
(Annexure R/1). Admittedly, the petitioner qualified the B.Ed. examination
in the year 2013 and he was not possessing the qualification of B.Ed. on the
date of declaration of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II eligibility result,
2011, i.e., 31.07.2012.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at the time of
verification, the petitioner was having qualification of B.Ed, therefore, she is
eligible for appointment.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the qualification of B.Ed.
till the result of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II Eligibility Examination,
2011 was declared on 31.07.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner cleared the
B.Ed. examination on 10.04.2013, as reflected in the mark-sheet (Annexure
P/3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to disclose the fact as to
when the result of the B.Ed. examination was declared by Jiwaji University,
Gwalior. As per the relevant recruitment rules, possession of a bachelor's
degree along with a B.Ed. qualification is an essential requirement. Since the
petitioner had appeared in the B.Ed. examination only in the year 2012, it is
evident that on the cut-off date the petitioner was not in possession of the
requisite qualification of B.Ed. Hence, mere verification of the mark-sheet
cannot confer any benefit upon the petitioner. The petitioner's subsequent
qualification cannot be treated to be qualification in terms of the
advertisement issued prior to acquiring the qualification.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20725
3 WP-4857-2013
6. The law with respect to the fact that a candidate should have all the
required qualification on the cut off date is no more res intergra. The
Hon Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar
Misra reported in 2017 (11) SCC 521 has held as under:
"6. The position is fairly well settled that when a set of
eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules
and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed
qualification for the post at the time of submission of
application or by the cut off date, if any, described
under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not
eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to
note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no
power was vested in any authority to make any
relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for
the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not
come within the zone of consideration for the post could
not be compared with a candidate who possess the
prescribed qualifications and was considered and
appointed to the post. Therefore, the so-called
confession made by the officer in the Court that persons
haying lower merit than the respondent have been
appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on
misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single
Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for
issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent.
The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming
the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thus the
judgment of the learned single Judge as confirmed by
the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set
aside."
7. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and another, reported in (1997) 4
SCC 18 has held as under:
"6....... The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the last date
for fling the applications, the eligibility of the
candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20725
4 WP-4857-2013
date and that dat e alone, is a well-established one. A
person who acquires the prescribed qualification
subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered
at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published
calling for applications constitutes a representation to
the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such
representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason
behind this proposition is that if it were known that
persons who obtained the qualifications after the
prescribed date but before the date of interview would
be allowed to appear for the interview, other similiarly
placed persons could also have applied. Just because
some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that
they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by
the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on
a preferential basis. Their application ought to have
been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is
indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in
the majority Judgement. This is also the proposition
affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of
Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. The
reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33
respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting
Authority was able to get the bests talent available and
that such course was in furtherence of public interest is,
with respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our
considered opinion, a clear error of low and an error
apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M.
Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court)
was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not
have allowed to appear for interview."
8. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar K. Mandal
and others vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519 has
held as under:
"What happens when a cut off date is fixed for fulfilling
the prescribed qualification relating to age by a
candidate for appointment and the effect of any non-
prescription has been considered by this Court in
several cases. The principles culled out from the
decisions of this Court are as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20725
5 WP-4857-2013
(1) The cut off date by reference to which the eligibility
requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking
a public employment is the date appointed by the
relevant service rules; (2) If there is no cut off date
appointed by the rules then such date shall be as
appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling
for applications; and (3) If there is no such date
appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by
reference to the last date appointed by which the
applications were to be received by the competent
authority."
9. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh
and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 has
held as under:-
"14. In view of several decisions of this Court relied on
by the High Court and referred to herein above, it was
expected of the State Government notifying the
vacancies to have clearly laid down and stated the cut
off date by reference to which the applicants were
required to satisfy their eligibility. This was not done. It
was pointed out on behalf of the several
appellants/petitioners before this Court that the practice
prevalent in Punjab has been to determine the eligibility
by reference to the date of interview and there are
innumerable cases wherein such candidates have been
seeking employment as were not eligible on the date of
making the applications or the last date appointed for
receipt of the applications but were in the process of
acquiring eligibility qualifications and did acquire the
same by the time they were called for and appeared at
the interview. Several such persons have been
appointed but no one has challenged their appointments
and they have continued to be in public employment.
Such a loose practice, though prevalent, cannot be
allowed to be continued and must be treated to have
been put to an end. The reason is apparent. The
applications made by such candidates as were not
qualified but were in the process of acquiring eligibility
qualifications would be difficult to be scrutinised and
subjected to the process of approval or elimination and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20725
6 WP-4857-2013
would only result in creating confusion and uncertainty.
Many would be such applicants who would be called to
face interview but shall have to be returned blank if
they failed to acquire requisite eligibility qualifications
by the time of interview. In our opinion the authorities
of the State should be tied down to the principles
governing the cut off date for testing the eligibility
qualifications on the principles deducible from decided
cases of this Court and stated herein above which have
now to be treated as the settled service jurisprudence."
10. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat and
others vs. Arvind kumar T. Tiwari and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC
3281 has held as under:-
"11. A person who does not possess the requisite
qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the
reason that his appointment would be contrary to the
statutory rules is, and would therefore, be void in law.
Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any
stage and appointing such a person would amount to
serious illegibility and not mere irregularity. Such a
person cannot approach the court for any relief for the
reason that he does not have a right which can be
enforced through court."
11. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs.
U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others , reported in AIR
2008 SC 1817 has held as under:
"19. If the essential educational qualification for
recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same
cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An
appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory
rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be
regularized, particularly, when the statute in no
unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20725
7 WP-4857-2013
24. A departmental proceeding against the
appellant might have been initiated after the change of
management. We will also assume that the said
proceeding was initiated after the contempt proceeding
was initiated. Appellant, however, has filed a writ
application for issuance of or in the nature of a writ of
mandamus. He, therefore, must establish existence of a
legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in
the State. If he did not possess the requisite qualification
to hold a post, he could not have any legal right to
continue. It was, therefore, immaterial as to why and
when the said proceeding had been initiated against
him."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Dipitimayee Parida vs. State of
Orissa And Others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 687 has held as under:-
"16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra
qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered
as on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so
held in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan stating:
(SCC p. 175, para 10)
"10. The contention that the required qualifications of the
candidates should be examined with reference to the date of
selection and not with reference to the last date for making
applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of
selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of
knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the
posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified
for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the
qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed
date with reference to which the qualifications are to be
judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20725
8 WP-4857-2013
would not be possible for the candidates who do not
possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to
make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date
may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those
candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti
and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date,
may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of
applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in
that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain
some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the
absence of a fixed date indicated in the
advertisement/notification inviting applications with
reference to which the requisite qualifications should be
judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for making the
applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding
that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as
argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the
requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather
than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with
patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in
question are liable to be quashed."
13. The aforesaid case law is fully applicable to the case of the
petitioner; therefore, no relief can be granted to him.
14. The petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
