Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT

Decided
1 August 1997
Judges listed
SUJATA V. MANOHAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 224 · 1997 INSC 589
Also cited as
  • (1997) 6 SCC 574 (10 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1998 SC 91 (7 citing judgments)
  • JT 1997 (7) SC 287 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 224, margin E

Heard both sides. In the Advertisement No. 1 of 1992 which was issued on 9.6.92 it was stated that the application form must reach the office of the Zila Parishad, Dungarpur latest by 5.00 p.m. on 29.6.92. The prescribed qualifications for the post required, inter alia practical/technical qualifications of B.S.T.C. or its equivalent, recognised by the State Government. The last paragraph of the advertisement stated that no certificates/marks-sheet will be accepted after the receipt of application forms in the office.

p. 224, margin F

The respondent did not possess the requisite technical qualification on 29.6.92 which was the last date for submitting application. He had appeared for the B.Ed. examination but the results were not declared on 29.6.92. The results were declared only on 6.8.92. The interviews for the advertised posts were held from 1st of September, 1992 onwards.

pp. 224–225, margin G

The respondent was not called for an interview since on the date of the receipt of his application, he did not possess any technical qualification. On 1.9.92 he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan and obtained an interim order requiring the appellant to call him for an interview. Pursuant to this interim order, he .was interviewed and thereafter, on the basis of the directions which the respondent obtained from the High Court, he was included in the list of selected candidates. He was appointed thereafter on a provisional basis subject to the outcome of this writ petition. According to the respondent he has now been confirmed.

p. 225, margin A

The Writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 17.7.95, holding that the cut-off date for ascertaining the eligibility of the respondent under the said advertisement was the last date prescribed for submission of the application i.e. 29.6.92. On 5.2.96 the services of the respondent were discontinued. The respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which has been allowed. The present appeal is from the decision of the Division Bench.

p. 225, margin C

Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have rekrred lo above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by. the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning. The respondent's application was not considered and he was not called for an interview. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied ·because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice A to others.

pp. 225–226, margin D

· In the premises, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. There shall .be no order as no to costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 226