Rajasthan High Court: “Eligibility Must Exist on Cut-Off Date”; Dismisses Plea Over Assistant Professor’s Appointment Cancellation for Wrong Ph.D. Completion Date
Isabella Mariam
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition seeking reinstatement to the post of Assistant Professor at a premier technical institution, observing that “there cannot be any waiver or relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement, unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement.” The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recorded that “granting any relief to the petitioner would violate the doctrine of equality, which is the backbone of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
The Court declined to interfere with the decision of the institution to cancel the petitioner’s appointment, noting that the petitioner did not meet the essential eligibility criterion on the last date of submission of the application form.
Also Read: Supreme Court Bars Police from Serving S.41A CrPC/S.35 BNSS Notices via WhatsApp or Electronic Means
The petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 7 September 2024 issued by the respondent institution, which revoked his appointment as Assistant Professor (Grade-II). The petitioner sought quashing of the order and reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
The case of the petitioner was that he had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Civil Engineering discipline pursuant to an advertisement dated 10 December 2022. As per the terms of the advertisement, candidates were required to possess a Ph.D. degree in the relevant subject on or before the last date of submission of the application form, which was 19 January 2023. The petitioner submitted that his Ph.D. was awarded on 28 December 2022, and that his defence took place on 29 November 2022, both dates being mentioned in his application form.
The petitioner contended that although his name was initially not included in the provisional list of eligible candidates, following a grievance raised before the respondents, he was allowed to participate in the selection process. He was interviewed on 5 November 2023 and subsequently received a provisional appointment on 15 December 2023, which was made final on 14 February 2024. The petitioner submitted that he resigned from a prior position as Scientist before joining the respondent institution.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that under Clause 12 of the Procedure for Selection of Faculty in NITs (Appendix-A1 of the NIT Rules), applications may be considered up to the date of interview. It was submitted that since the petitioner’s Ph.D. degree was formally awarded on 6 April 2023, prior to his interview date, his candidature ought to have been treated as valid.
The petitioner also argued that candidates with significant research publications may be granted relaxation in the Ph.D. requirement under the recruitment rules framed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.
In response, the respondents submitted that the recruitment was governed by the applicable Recruitment Rules for Faculty of NITs, wherein the essential qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor is a Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline. The advertisement explicitly stated that candidates must possess this qualification as on the last date for submission of the application form.
The respondents further submitted that the petitioner’s Ph.D. degree was actually awarded on 6 April 2023, which was after the cut-off date of 19 January 2023, rendering him ineligible. It was submitted that the petitioner misrepresented facts regarding the date of award of his Ph.D. in the application form, which led to his provisional appointment. The respondents stated that the offer of appointment was conditional upon verification of documents and contained a clause permitting cancellation if any false information was discovered.
The respondents asserted that a show cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner before cancellation of his appointment, and the impugned order was passed after providing him an opportunity of hearing.
The Court recorded that “as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the eligibility of the candidate with regard to qualification was required to be considered on the closing date i.e. the last date of submission of application form.” The Court further recorded, “this fact is not in dispute that 19.01.2023 was the last date fixed for receiving the hard copy of the application forms. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite Ph.D. degree on the said day.”
The Court referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court on the requirement to possess eligibility on the last date of application submission, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar Misra (2017) 11 SCC 521, where it was held that “when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, prescribed under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post.”
The Court also recorded from the judgment in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 545, that “ineligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such person would amount to serious illegality.”
In relation to the petitioner’s contention on relaxation, the Court observed that “there cannot be any waiver or relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement, unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant Rules and/or in the advertisement.” The Court further stated that “even if, there is a power of relaxation provided in the Rules, the same would have to be indicated in the advertisement. When such power is exercised, there should be and must be wide publicity in the advertisement itself.”
The Court recorded that “since there was no reference of relaxation in the Rules and/or in the advertisement, the other similarly situated persons, who were lacking eligibility due to non-possession of the required qualification of Ph.D. degree on the last date of submission of the application form, failed to apply in the selection process as they were treated as ‘ineligible’ to participate.”
In rejecting the plea of estoppel raised by the petitioner, the Court recorded that “granting any relief to the petitioner would violate the doctrine of equality, which is the backbone of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyam Khandelwal
For the Respondents: Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG, Mr. Nathu Singh Chauhan, Mr. Devesh Yadav, Mr. Rajat Sharma
Case Title: Dr. Sabyasachi Swain v. Malviya National Institute of Technology & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:9693
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15451/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
