1990 (4) TMI 294 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cut-off date for receipt of applications.
2. Alleged arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. High Court's assumption of past practices.
4. Introduction of new facts at the Supreme Court level.
5. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
6. Undertaking given by the State Government to the High Court.

Summary:

1. Validity of the cut-off date for receipt of applications:
The State of Bihar published an advertisement inviting applications for various junior teaching posts in medical colleges with a cut-off date for receipt of applications fixed as 31st January, 1988. The respondents challenged this cut-off date, arguing it deprived them of the opportunity to compete as they did not meet the requisite experience criterion by that date.

2. Alleged arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The respondents contended that the cut-off date was arbitrarily fixed and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld this contention, stating that the State Government had deviated from its usual practice of fixing the cut-off date as 30th June of the relevant year.

3. High Court's assumption of past practices:
The High Court assumed that the cut-off date was always fixed as 30th June based on past advertisements. However, the Supreme Court found this assumption erroneous, as documentary evidence showed that different cut-off dates were fixed in the past, and it was not a uniform practice to fix 30th June as the cut-off date.

4. Introduction of new facts at the Supreme Court level:
The State Government introduced advertisements from 1974 to 1980 to dispel the High Court's assumption. The Supreme Court permitted this, noting that the High Court's assumption was not supported by any material evidence.

5. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution:
The respondents argued that the Supreme Court should not interfere under Article 136. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision was based on an erroneous assumption of fact and thus warranted correction.

6. Undertaking given by the State Government to the High Court:
The respondents contended that the State Government had given an undertaking to the High Court regarding the preparation of a new panel. The Supreme Court held that this undertaking did not preclude the State from challenging the High Court's decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs throughout. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in striking down the Government's action of fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 31st January, 1988, as arbitrary.