Deadline for Qualifications Key in Candidate Eligibility Decision

The Supreme Court held that candidates must possess the requisite qualifications by the last date prescribed for submitting applications, reaffirming that eligibility should be judged with reference to the application deadline. The Court found that allowing candidates who acquired qualifications after the deadline but before the interview was unfair to other applicants. The Court dismissed the review petitions, clarifying the legal issue regarding qualification dates but decided not to disturb the inter-se seniority established by the selecting authority, considering the significant passage of time and promotions earned by the candidates.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether it is legally permissible for a candidate to be qualified by the date of the interview even if not by the last date prescribed for receiving applications.
2. Whether the direction to treat candidates who were not qualified by the last date of receipt of applications as juniors to those who were qualified was just.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Qualification by Date of Interview
The first issue concerns the legality of allowing candidates to be qualified by the date of the interview rather than the last date prescribed for receiving applications. The majority judgment by Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ., held that it was permissible for the 33 candidates to appear for the interview as they were qualified by the date of the interview. The reasoning was that this approach allowed the recruiting authority to get the best talents available, which was in the public interest. However, R.M. Sahai, J., dissented, holding that candidates must possess the requisite qualifications by the last date prescribed for submitting applications.

Upon review, the Supreme Court found the majority judgment unsustainable in law. It reaffirmed the established legal principle that the eligibility of candidates must be judged with reference to the last date prescribed for receiving applications. The Court emphasized that an advertisement calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public, and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. Allowing candidates who acquired qualifications after the prescribed date but before the interview would be unfair to other similarly placed persons who might have applied had they known this was permissible. Therefore, the Court held in favor of the review petitioners on this issue, affirming the opinion of Sahai, J., and concluded that the 33 respondents should not have been allowed to appear for the interview.

Issue 2: Inter-Se Seniority
The second issue pertains to the inter-se seniority between candidates who were qualified by the last date for receiving applications and those who were not. The Division Bench had directed that the 33 respondents should be treated as juniors en bloc to the candidates who were fully qualified by the prescribed date. The Supreme Court had to decide whether this direction was just.

The Court noted several factors:
- Writ Petition No. 250 of 1983, filed by similarly placed persons, was dismissed and had become final.
- Writ Petition No. 483 of 1983 was filed by only four candidates in their individual capacity, not in a representative capacity.
- Sahai, J., despite disagreeing with the majority on the legal question, opined that the seniority of the 33 respondents should not be disturbed.
- The 33 respondents had been appointed since 1984 and had earned two promotions, while the review petitioners and others similarly placed had also been promoted once.
- Thirteen years had passed since the initial appointments, making it inequitable to alter the inter-se seniority at this stage.

Given these considerations and acknowledging the unanimous opinion of the three learned judges on the seniority issue, the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with the established seniority. The Court emphasized that this decision was made in the context of its review jurisdiction and the discretionary nature of the relief sought.

Conclusion:
The review petitions were dismissed, with the Supreme Court clarifying the legal issue regarding qualification dates but deciding not to disturb the inter-se seniority established by the selecting authority. The Court's decision was influenced by the significant passage of time and the promotions already earned by the candidates.

---