2007 (2) TMI 644 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in making appointment of the appellant, the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and statutory rules were not complied with? Whether it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he was not qualified by the last date prescribed for receiving the applications, is correct in law and whether the majority was right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy?

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility criteria and cut-off date for qualifications.
2. Visitor's power under Section 5(7) of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915.
3. Principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem.
4. Equity and sympathy in judicial decisions.
5. Legality versus irregularity of appointments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility Criteria and Cut-Off Date for Qualifications:
The appellant applied for a lecturer position without holding the requisite M.D. qualification as of the application date. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of a specified cut-off date in the advertisement or rules, the last date for filing the application is considered the cut-off date. The Court cited precedents, including *Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher* and *Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab*, affirming that eligibility must be determined by the last application date. The appellant, not having the required qualification by this date, was deemed ineligible.

2. Visitor's Power under Section 5(7) of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915:
The Visitor, the President of India, annulled the appellant's appointment, finding the selection process non-compliant with the Act, Statutes, or Ordinances. The Court upheld this power, noting that the Visitor could annul any proceeding not in conformity with statutory provisions. The selection process was a proceeding under the Act, and the Visitor's annulment was justified as the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria.

3. Principles of Natural Justice and Audi Alteram Partem:
The appellant argued for a hearing opportunity before the annulment of his appointment. The Court acknowledged the importance of natural justice but stated that it need not be followed if it would be a futile exercise. Given the appellant's clear ineligibility, a hearing would not have changed the outcome. The Court referenced *Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan* and *Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.G. Kotturappa*, supporting the view that compliance with natural justice principles is unnecessary when it leads to an empty formality.

4. Equity and Sympathy in Judicial Decisions:
The appellant sought relief based on equity and sympathy. The Court rejected this, emphasizing that sympathy should not override legal principles and statutory compliance. Citing *Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal* and *A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies*, the Court reiterated that judicial decisions should not be based on sympathy at the expense of statutory provisions and the rights of other eligible candidates.

5. Legality versus Irregularity of Appointments:
The Court distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments, stating that while irregular appointments might be regularized, illegal appointments are null and void. The appellant's appointment was illegal as it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and statutory rules. The Court stressed that illegal appointments cannot be validated through equity jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Visitor's decision to annul the appellant's appointment due to ineligibility and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The Court upheld the principles of eligibility determination, the Visitor's statutory powers, and the necessity of adhering to legal standards over equity and sympathy.

← Previous Next →