In Civil Appeal No. 7069 Of 2023 -SC- Supreme Court dismisses appeals by serving armed forces personnel seeking ex-servicemen status for village development officer posts; Holds eligibility criteria based on advertised cut-off date
Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah [30-10-2023]

Read Order: Sudhir Singh and Others V. State of U.P. and Others

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 1, 2023: The Supreme Court has upheld the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting the claims of three ex-servicemen for recruitment as Village Development Officers in Uttar Pradesh.

In this case, the appellants were serving in the Armed Forces when they applied for the position of Village Development Officer in response to an advertisement from the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. They applied as ex-servicemen and received temporary appointment letters in 2019. However, their appointments were later challenged by the District Development Officer, Badaun, who argued that they did not meet the ex-servicemen criteria and lacked the required Computer Concept (C.C.C.) Certificate. Consequently, in 2020, their appointments were declared null and void due to these reasons.

The State contended that the appellants were ineligible for appointment because they did not possess the required qualifications. They argued that the appellants were not ex-servicemen at the time of the advertisement, and none of them had the necessary C.C.C. Certificate when they applied. The State also claimed that the appellants' failure to disclose their actual qualifications at the time of application constituted grave misconduct.

The appellants, on the other hand, argued that the authorities had accepted the documents they provided, indicating they possessed the necessary qualifications for the job. They asserted that the date of their appointment should be considered the date when the appointment letters were issued in May 2019. Prior to this, appellant no.1 was released from the Armed Forces on July 31, 2016, appellant no.2 on November 30, 2016, and appellant no.3 on February 29, 2016. Regarding the lack of a C.C.C. Certificate, the appellants claimed they had higher qualifications than required and already possessed an equivalent qualification, which led the Commission to recommend their appointment.

The division bench, comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, emphasized that eligibility must be determined based on the cut-off date established by the date of the advertisement, which is the last date for the submission of application forms, unless extended by the relevant authority. In this case, the bench held that none of the appellants could be considered ex-servicemen at the time of the advertised position because they were still actively serving in the Armed Forces.

The bench made a reference to the judgment in the case of State of Bihar v. Madhu Kant Ranjan [LQ/SC/2021/3212], in which the court had held that candidates or applicants must meet all the conditions and eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein, unless the recruiting authority extends that date.

The bench clarified that, in the case at hand, there was no concept of serving personnel being deemed as ex-servicemen. It would not be appropriate for the court to interpret otherwise. Additionally, they mentioned that it would be unfair to a significant number of individuals in similar situations as the appellants who were not ex-servicemen at the time of the advertisement but later qualified for the category. These individuals did not apply at the relevant time, and it would be unjust to interpret the rules differently for the appellants in this case.

Further, the court noted that it was unnecessary to delve into the question of equivalence regarding the C.C.C. Certificate, but due to the arguments presented, they reiterated that the advertisement clearly stated the essential qualification as a C.C.C. Certificate. Since the appellants failed to demonstrate such equivalence despite the opportunity to do so, the court found no merit in their appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was upheld. However, the court specified that any payments made to the appellants for the period during which they worked as Village Development Officers would not be subject to recovery. If any such recoveries had already been made, they were to be returned to the appellants without delay.