9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The fixation of 1st August as the cut-off date for determining eligibility for competitive examinations despite the introduction of a preliminary examination before that date. Summary: Issue 1: Fixation of Cut-off Date The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the cut-off date of 1st August for determining eligibility for competitive examinations, despite the introduction of a preliminary examination before that date. The Court emphasized that arbitrariness in fixing a cut-off date is impermissible under Article 14, citing legal precedents. The Court highlighted that a cut-off date can be deemed arbitrary if it appears to be randomly chosen, as established in previous cases. The Court also referenced judgments emphasizing the need for reasonability in fixing cut-off dates. The Court examined the rationale behind maintaining the 1st August cut-off date despite the preliminary examination being conducted earlier, noting that the main examination held after 1st August determines the merit order. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the continuation of the 1st August cut-off date was not arbitrary or capricious to warrant judicial interference. Issue 2: Legal Interpretation The Court scrutinized the reasoning behind the impugned judgment that deemed the 1st August cut-off date arbitrary. The judgment relied on an Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, which the Court found could not override statutory provisions. The Court highlighted that the statutory regulations governing the examinations did not support the reliance on the Office Memorandum. Additionally, the Court noted that a subsequent Office Memorandum clarified the crucial date range for civil service examinations, emphasizing the importance of the later date between 1st January and 1st August. The Court criticized the adjudicatory body for relying on the executive memorandum in contradiction to statutory provisions. Issue 3: Equity and Legal Stand The Court addressed the argument for equity put forth by the respondent's counsel, citing a previous case. However, the Court rejected the equity argument, noting that the impugned judgment appeared to be influenced by ulterior motives. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the refusal to refer the matter to a larger bench despite conflicting decisions by the same Tribunal. The Court emphasized the importance of consistency in decisions, especially concerning examinations conducted by bodies like the Union Public Service Commission. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and directing the cancellation of benefits granted to the respondent, with costs imposed.
|
