University recruitment eligibility turns on last application date, with relaxation of qualifications requiring disclosed reasons and recorded minutes.

In university recruitment, where an advertisement does not fix a separate eligibility date, qualifications must be assessed with reference to the last date for submitting applications, and candidates who qualify later cannot be treated as eligible for that selection. Any relaxation of prescribed qualifications must be expressly disclosed in the advertisement with its conditions, and the reasons for granting relaxation to each candidate must be recorded. Preservation of selection records is essential, because missing or destroyed minutes may justify an adverse inference if the process is challenged. The note also states that such defects may not always lead to quashing where later circumstances make that impracticable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the selection of Assistant Professors could be interfered with on the ground that the University assessed qualifications as on the date of selection instead of the last date for applications, and whether relaxation of qualifications without recorded reasons and preserved minutes rendered the selection invalid.

Analysis: In the absence of any specific date fixed in the advertisement for judging eligibility, the only certain date for determining qualifications is the last date for submission of applications. Candidates who acquire the necessary qualifications after that date cannot be treated as eligible for the selection in question, since such a course would be arbitrary and discriminatory. At the same time, where the selection committee is empowered to relax qualifications, the relaxation must be expressly indicated in the advertisement with its conditions, and the proceedings must record the reasons for granting relaxation to each candidate. The preservation of selection records is also essential, because destruction or non-availability of the minutes may justify an adverse inference when the process is challenged.

Conclusion: The selection was found to suffer from illegality on the eligibility-date issue, but the Court declined to set it aside in view of the passage of time and the circumstances of the case. The petition was therefore dismissed, while the Court issued binding guidelines for future selections.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the existing appointments and laid down mandatory norms to govern future university selections, particularly on eligibility date, relaxation of qualifications, recording of reasons, and preservation of selection records.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an advertisement does not fix another date, eligibility must be judged with reference to the last date for applications, and any relaxation of prescribed qualifications must be expressly provided for and recorded with reasons.

---