The University Of Agricultural Secinces Vs. Dr Savitri W/o Siddanagouda Patil And Anr - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1233116
CourtKarnataka Kalaburagi High Court
Decided OnDec-12-2023
Case NumberWA 200036/2023
JudgeR.DEVDAS AND C M JOSHI
AppellantThe University Of Agricultural Secinces
RespondentDr Savitri W/o Siddanagouda Patil And Anr
Excerpt:
- 1 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db r wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 in the high court of karnataka kalaburagi bench dated this the12h day of december, 2023 present the hon'ble mr. justice r.devdas and the hon'ble mr. justice c m joshi writ appeal no.200027 of2023(s-res) c/w writ appeal no.200036 of2023s-res) in w.a. no.200027 of2023between: prasanna kumar s/o shivasharanappa age:39. years, occ: assistant professor university of agricultural science, raichur, dist: raichur – 584 101. …appellant (by sri. manvendra reddy, advocate) and:1. dr. savitri w/o siddanagouda patil, aged about35years, occ: assistant professor, r/o h.no.2-907/118/39, behind rto, sai nagar kalaburagi – 585 105.-. 2 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 2. vice chancellor university of agricultural sciences raichur – 584 101.3. the registrar and member secretary board of management university of agricultural sciences raichur – 584 101. …respondents (by smt.hema l.k., advocate for r1; sri. amresh s. roja, advocate for r2 and r3) this writ appeal is filed under section4of the karnataka high courts act – 1961, praying to allow the writ appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned single judge dated3001.2023 in writ petition no.200174/2018 (s-res) and dismiss writ petition no.200174/2018 (s-res) filed by the1t respondent and etc., in w.a.no.200036 of2023between: the university of agricultural sciences, raichur – 584 101. represented by its registrar. …appellant (by sri. amaresh s. roja, advocate) and:1. dr. savitri w/o siddanagouda patil, aged about39years, occ: assistant professor, - 3 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 r/o h.no.2-907/118/39, behind rto, sai nagar kalaburagi – 585 105.2. prasanna kumar s/o shivasharnappa age:43. years, occ: assistant professor, university of agricultural sciences, raichur, r/o. raichur – 584 101. …respondents (by smt. hema l.k., advocate for r1; sri. manvendra reddy, advocate for r2) this writ appeal is filed under section4of the karnataka high court act – 1961, praying to set aside the order passed in writ petition no.200174/2018 dated3001.2023 by allowing the appeal and reject the writ petition, in the interest of justice. these appeals coming on for admission this day, r.devdas j., delivered the following: judgment r. devdas j., (oral): since these two appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned single judge in w.p.no.200174/2018, both these appeals are heard and disposed of by this common order.-. 4 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 2. the appellant, who was respondent no.3 before the learned single judge in w.p.no.200174/2018, is before this court seeking to assail the orders passed by the learned single judge.3. for the purpose of convenience the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the writ petition.4. the writ petitioner approached the learned single judge aggrieved of an endorsement issued by the respondent-university declining to accept the application filed by the writ petitioner who had responded to a recruitment notification to fill up the post of assistant professor of physical education. the recruitment notification was issued on 26.02.2014 and the last date of filing the application was 15.04.2014. however, subsequently, one more notification was issued on 09.01.2016 and the last date for filing the application was 08.02.2016.5. it is undisputed fact that the parties before the court have responded to the said recruitment notification - 5 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 dated 09.01.2016, where the last date for filing the application was 08.02.2016. it is another matter that by way of corrigendum/addendum dated 11.04.2016 one more post of assistant professor of soil and water engineering was added to the previous notification which is not in any way connected to the subject matter and therefore, the same can be ignored. in response to the notification dated 09.01.2016, where the last date for filing the application was 08.02.2016, the writ petitioner submitted an application claiming that she was awarded ph.d. on 11.12.2015. however, a statement was made by the petitioner that a no objection certificate from the parent institution would be submitted at the time of interview. on scrutinizing the applications and completing the recruitment process, a proceeding was drawn by the board of management of the respondent-university on 29.08.2017 according approval for the appointments of the selected candidates including the post of assistant professor of physical education. the respondent no.3- sri.prasanna kumar was selected under the general merit - 6 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 category while one sri.rajkumar gurushant karve was selected under the scheduled caste category. feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the learned single judge. in the writ petition, the petitioner also called in question the order of appointment dated 04.09.2017 issued in favour of respondent no.3. it is also not disputed that respondent no.3 took charge consequent to the order of appointment issued on 04.09.2017.6. before the learned single judge, it was contended by the writ petitioner that she was awarded ph.d. degree on 11.12.2015, but the convocation certificate was issued only on 04.03.2016 and therefore along with the application a notification dated 30.12.2015 issued by the karnataka state women university, vijayapur, was tendered by the writ petitioner. several judgments were relied upon by both the sides and the learned single judge has bestowed his attention to the judgments in the case of karnataka state seeds development corporation limited and another vs.-. 7 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 smt.h.l.kaveri and others, state of bihar vs. madhu kant ranjan and another, reported in air online 2021 sc1229 mrs. rekha chaturvedi vs. university of rajasthan and others, reported in 1993 air scw1488and roshni devi and others vs. state of haryana and others, reported in air1998sc3268 however, the learned single judge accepted the contention of the writ petitioner that since notification dated 30.12.2015 was submitted by the writ petitioner along with the application, the writ petitioner fulfilled the requirement of the recruitment notification and the rules governing the recruitment process. consequently, the writ petition was allowed, while setting aside the appointment of respondent no.3, with a direction to respondent no.2- university to consider the claim of the writ petitioner, award appropriate marks in accordance with guidelines at annexure-r(2)e and thereafter, pass fresh orders of appointment to the post of assistant professor in physical education.-. 8 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 7. before this court too, it is the contention of the writ petitioner that since the writ petitioner had enclosed a copy of the notification dated 30.12.2015 along with the application before the last date for filing the application, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned single judge.8. it was also contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the production of the notification dated 30.12.2015 is in accordance with the relevant regulations of the university grants commission (for short, 'ugc') namely the university grants commission (minimum standards and procedure for awards of m.phil/ph.d. degree) regulation 2009. in fact, it was pointed out from the impugned order that the relevant regulations-19 and 20 have been extracted by the learned single judge in the impugned order. learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the production of the notification dated 30.12.2015 is in compliance of the requirement of the regulations of the - 9 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 ugc and the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner at the hands of the respondent-university is contrary to the established principles of law and the requirements even in terms of the regulations of the ugc.9. we have perused the judgments which were referred to by the learned single judge. we find that the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court has undergone changes. for instance, in ram kumar gijroya vs. delhi subordinate services selection board and another reported in (2016) 4 scc754while placing reliance on pushpa vs. government (nct of delhi) reported in 2009 scc online delhi 281, it was held that the decisions rendered in the case of pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in indira sawhney vs. union of india reported in 1992 supp. (3) scc217and in the case of valsamma paul vs. cochin university reported in (1996) 3 scc545 wherein this court had held that the object of providing reservations to the scs/sts and - 10 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to general categories, as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. in that context, the hon'ble supreme court upheld the orders passed by the learned single judge of the delhi high court, who had directed the respondent authorities that since aggrieved candidates had submitted the obc certificates after the cut off date but before the date of interview, the same was required to be accepted. however, the said decision was referred to a larger bench in the case of karn singh yadav vs. government of nct of delhi and others reported in 2020 scc online sc1472 10. subsequently, in a latest decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of divya vs. union of india and others reported in 2023 scc online sc1305 decided on 09.10.2023, the hon'ble supreme court - 11 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 clarified the position having noticed the earlier judgments in ramkumar gijroya (supra), karn singh yadav, (supra) ashok kumar sharma and others vs. chander shekhar and another reported in (1997) 4 scc18and various other cases. it was noticed that the judgment in the case of ashok kumar sharma (supra) was rendered by a three judge bench and therefore, the said decision would be binding on the bench comprising of two judges. in ashok kumar sharma (supra), a review was sought in respect of an earlier decision of the year 1993. the larger bench held that the views taken by the majority that 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 application, is unsustainable in law. it was held that the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone is a well established one. a person who acquires the prescribed qualification - 12 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 subsequent to such prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. an advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. it cannot act contrary to it. one reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. this proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed by the majority judgment. this is also the proposition affirmed in the case of rekha chaturvedi (supra) (which was also referred to by the learned single judge). the hon'ble supreme court held that the reasoning in the majority opinion that by - 13 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest was rejected as impermissible justification.11. having noticed the said decision in the case of ashok kumar sharma (supra) of a larger bench, the hon'ble supreme court in the latest decision in the case of divya (supra) held that upsc was justified in prescribing a cut off date for possession and for uploading of the income and assets certificate in the prescribed format and the same was in terms of the relevant rules and if any candidate failed to submit the income and assets certificate in terms of the said prescription, the candidature of such person cannot be accepted by the upsc. the rejection of such applications was upheld at the hands of the hon'ble supreme court.12. having regard to the said decisions, when we consider the case on hand, it is clear that the writ petitioner had not tendered ph.d. certificate along with the - 14 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 application form. the other limb of the argument put forth on behalf of the writ petitioner that production of the notification dated 30.12.2015 along with application form would meet the requirement having regard to the regulations-19 and 20 of the regulations-2009 also cannot be accepted. the learned single judge had infact extracted the relevant regulations-19 and 20 as follows:"19. following the successful completion of the evaluation process and announcements of the award of m.phil/ph.d., the university shall submit a soft copy of the m.phil/ph.d., thesis to the ugc within a period of thirty days, for hosting the same in inflibnet, accessible to all institutions/universities.20. alongwith the degree, the degree awarding university, institution deemed to be university, college/institution of national importance, as the case may be, shall issue a provisional certificate certifying to the effect that the degree has been awarded in accordance with the provisions to these regulations of the ugc.13. it is clear from the regulations that there is no such provision for issuance of notification as was done in - 15 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 the case of the writ petitioner. in terms of the regulation- 19, following the successful completion of evaluation process and announcement of the award of ph.d., the university was required to submit a soft copy of the thesis to the ugc within a period of 30 days for hosting the same in inflibnet, so that it would be accessible to all institutions/universities. regulation-20 would mandate that along with degree, the degree awarding university shall issue a provisional certificate certifying to the effect that the degree has been awarded in accordance with the provisions of the regulations of the ugc. these two provisions do not permit issuance of such notifications as was tendered by the writ petitioner namely notification dated 30.12.2015.14. having regard to the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that since the writ petitioner did not tender the ph.d., certificate along with application form before the last date i.e., 08.02.2016 and when admittedly the ph.d., certificate was given to the writ - 16 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 petitioner on 04.03.2016, after the last date for filing the application namely 08.02.2016, the non awarding of the marks by the respondent-university for not tendering the ph.d., certificate cannot be faulted. for the same reason, we are also of the opinion that the writ petition challenging the announcement of the results of the recruitment process and the subsequent challenge raised to the order of appointment issued in favour of the third respondent, could not have been allowed by the learned single judge. the third respondent has taken charge after the order of appointment dated 04.09.2017 and has been working since then.15. for the reasons stated above, we proceed to allow both the writ appeals while setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned single judge in w.p.no.200174/2018 dated 30.01.2023.16. at this juncture, it was submitted that following the direction issued by the learned single judge, the respondent-university reconsidered the claim of the writ - 17 - nc:2023. khc-k:9172-db wa no.200027 of 2023 c/w wa no.200036 of 2023 petitioner, awarded marks and tendered the same in a sealed cover. now that we have set aside the order of the learned single judge, the question of opening the sealed cover or announcing the result would not arise.17. accordingly, the sealed cover is opened and closed. ordered accordingly. sd/- judge sd/- judge msr/vnr ct:vk list no.:1. sl no.: 9
Judgment:

- 1 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB R WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE12H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO.200027 OF2023(S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.200036 OF2023S-RES) IN W.A. NO.200027 OF2023BETWEEN: PRASANNA KUMAR S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA AGE:

39. YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. DR. SAVITRI W/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT35YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/O H.NO.2-907/118/39, BEHIND RTO, SAI NAGAR KALABURAGI – 585 105.-. 2 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 2. VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES RAICHUR – 584 101.

3. THE REGISTRAR AND MEMBER SECRETARY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.HEMA L.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT – 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER

PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED3001.2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.200174/2018 (S-RES) AND DISMISS WRIT PETITION NO.200174/2018 (S-RES) FILED BY THE1T RESPONDENT AND ETC., IN W.A.NO.200036 OF2023BETWEEN: THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, RAICHUR – 584 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AMARESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. DR. SAVITRI W/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT39YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, - 3 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 R/O H.NO.2-907/118/39, BEHIND RTO, SAI NAGAR KALABURAGI – 585 105.

2. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA AGE:

43. YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, RAICHUR, R/O. RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMA L.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT – 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.200174/2018 DATED3001.2023 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND REJECT THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL): Since these two appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200174/2018, both these appeals are heard and disposed of by this common order.-. 4 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 2. The appellant, who was respondent No.3 before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200174/2018, is before this Court seeking to assail the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. For the purpose of convenience the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the writ petition.

4. The writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge aggrieved of an endorsement issued by the respondent-University declining to accept the application filed by the writ petitioner who had responded to a recruitment notification to fill up the post of Assistant Professor of Physical Education. The recruitment notification was issued on 26.02.2014 and the last date of filing the application was 15.04.2014. However, subsequently, one more notification was issued on 09.01.2016 and the last date for filing the application was 08.02.2016.

5. It is undisputed fact that the parties before the Court have responded to the said recruitment notification - 5 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 dated 09.01.2016, where the last date for filing the application was 08.02.2016. It is another matter that by way of corrigendum/addendum dated 11.04.2016 one more post of Assistant Professor of Soil and Water Engineering was added to the previous notification which is not in any way connected to the subject matter and therefore, the same can be ignored. In response to the notification dated 09.01.2016, where the last date for filing the application was 08.02.2016, the writ petitioner submitted an application claiming that she was awarded Ph.D. on 11.12.2015. However, a statement was made by the petitioner that a no objection certificate from the parent institution would be submitted at the time of interview. On scrutinizing the applications and completing the recruitment process, a proceeding was drawn by the Board of Management of the respondent-University on 29.08.2017 according approval for the appointments of the selected candidates including the post of Assistant Professor of Physical Education. The respondent No.3- Sri.Prasanna Kumar was selected under the General Merit - 6 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 Category while one Sri.Rajkumar Gurushant Karve was selected under the Scheduled Caste Category. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the learned Single Judge. In the writ petition, the petitioner also called in question the order of appointment dated 04.09.2017 issued in favour of respondent No.3. It is also not disputed that respondent No.3 took charge consequent to the order of appointment issued on 04.09.2017.

6. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended by the writ petitioner that she was awarded Ph.D. degree on 11.12.2015, but the convocation certificate was issued only on 04.03.2016 and therefore along with the application a notification dated 30.12.2015 issued by the Karnataka State Women University, Vijayapur, was tendered by the writ petitioner. Several judgments were relied upon by both the sides and the learned Single Judge has bestowed his attention to the judgments in the case of Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited and Another Vs.-. 7 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 Smt.H.L.Kaveri and Others, State of Bihar Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan and Another, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC1229 Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and Others, reported in 1993 AIR SCW1488and Roshni Devi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in AIR1998SC3268 However, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the writ petitioner that since notification dated 30.12.2015 was submitted by the writ petitioner along with the application, the writ petitioner fulfilled the requirement of the Recruitment Notification and the Rules governing the recruitment process. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, while setting aside the appointment of respondent No.3, with a direction to respondent No.2- University to consider the claim of the writ petitioner, award appropriate marks in accordance with guidelines at Annexure-R(2)E and thereafter, pass fresh orders of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education.-. 8 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 7. Before this Court too, it is the contention of the writ petitioner that since the writ petitioner had enclosed a copy of the notification dated 30.12.2015 along with the application before the last date for filing the application, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the production of the notification dated 30.12.2015 is in accordance with the relevant Regulations of the University Grants Commission (for short, 'UGC') namely the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards Of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulation 2009. In fact, it was pointed out from the impugned order that the relevant Regulations-19 and 20 have been extracted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the production of the notification dated 30.12.2015 is in compliance of the requirement of the Regulations of the - 9 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 UGC and the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner at the hands of the respondent-University is contrary to the established principles of law and the requirements even in terms of the Regulations of the UGC.

9. We have perused the judgments which were referred to by the learned Single Judge. We find that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has undergone changes. For instance, in Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC754while placing reliance on Pushpa Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 SCC online Delhi 281, it was held that the decisions rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India reported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC217and in the case of Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University reported in (1996) 3 SCC545 wherein this Court had held that the object of providing reservations to the SCs/STs and - 10 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to general categories, as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who had directed the respondent authorities that since aggrieved candidates had submitted the OBC certificates after the cut off date but before the date of interview, the same was required to be accepted. However, the said decision was referred to a larger bench in the case of Karn Singh Yadav Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2020 SCC online SC1472 10. Subsequently, in a latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC1305 decided on 09.10.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court - 11 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 clarified the position having noticed the earlier judgments in Ramkumar Gijroya (supra), Karn Singh Yadav, (supra) Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another reported in (1997) 4 SCC18and various other cases. It was noticed that the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) was rendered by a Three Judge Bench and therefore, the said decision would be binding on the bench comprising of two judges. In Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), a review was sought in respect of an earlier decision of the year 1993. The larger bench held that the views taken by the majority that 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 application, is unsustainable in law. It was held that the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone is a well established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification - 12 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 subsequent to such prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed by the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (supra) (which was also referred to by the learned Single Judge). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the reasoning in the majority opinion that by - 13 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest was rejected as impermissible justification.

11. Having noticed the said decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) of a larger bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest decision in the case of Divya (supra) held that UPSC was justified in prescribing a cut off date for possession and for uploading of the income and assets certificate in the prescribed format and the same was in terms of the relevant rules and if any candidate failed to submit the income and assets certificate in terms of the said prescription, the candidature of such person cannot be accepted by the UPSC. The rejection of such applications was upheld at the hands of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12. Having regard to the said decisions, when we consider the case on hand, it is clear that the writ petitioner had not tendered Ph.D. certificate along with the - 14 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 application form. The other limb of the argument put forth on behalf of the writ petitioner that production of the notification dated 30.12.2015 along with application form would meet the requirement having regard to the Regulations-19 and 20 of the Regulations-2009 also cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge had infact extracted the relevant Regulations-19 and 20 as follows:

"19. Following the successful completion of the evaluation process and announcements of the award of M.Phil/Ph.D., the University shall submit a soft copy of the M.Phil/Ph.D., thesis to the UGC within a period of thirty days, for hosting the same in INFLIBNET, accessible to all Institutions/Universities.

20. Alongwith the Degree, the Degree awarding University, Institution Deemed to be University, College/Institution of National Importance, as the case may be, shall issue a Provisional Certificate certifying to the effect that the Degree has been awarded in accordance with the provisions to these Regulations of the UGC.

13. It is clear from the Regulations that there is no such provision for issuance of notification as was done in - 15 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 the case of the writ petitioner. In terms of the Regulation- 19, following the successful completion of evaluation process and announcement of the award of Ph.D., the University was required to submit a soft copy of the thesis to the UGC within a period of 30 days for hosting the same in INFLIBNET, so that it would be accessible to all Institutions/Universities. Regulation-20 would mandate that along with Degree, the Degree awarding University shall issue a Provisional Certificate certifying to the effect that the Degree has been awarded in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations of the UGC. These two provisions do not permit issuance of such notifications as was tendered by the writ petitioner namely notification dated 30.12.2015.

14. Having regard to the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that since the writ petitioner did not tender the Ph.D., certificate along with application form before the last date i.e., 08.02.2016 and when admittedly the Ph.D., certificate was given to the writ - 16 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 petitioner on 04.03.2016, after the last date for filing the application namely 08.02.2016, the non awarding of the marks by the respondent-University for not tendering the Ph.D., certificate cannot be faulted. For the same reason, we are also of the opinion that the writ petition challenging the announcement of the results of the recruitment process and the subsequent challenge raised to the order of appointment issued in favour of the third respondent, could not have been allowed by the learned Single Judge. The third respondent has taken charge after the order of appointment dated 04.09.2017 and has been working since then.

15. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to allow both the writ appeals while setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200174/2018 dated 30.01.2023.

16. At this juncture, it was submitted that following the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the respondent-University reconsidered the claim of the writ - 17 - NC:

2023. KHC-K:9172-DB WA No.200027 of 2023 C/W WA No.200036 of 2023 petitioner, awarded marks and tendered the same in a sealed cover. Now that we have set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, the question of opening the sealed cover or announcing the result would not arise.

17. Accordingly, the sealed cover is opened and closed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MSR/VNR CT:VK List No.:

1. Sl No.: 9