Eligibility for appointment is judged on the last date for applications, and selection cannot be disturbed without findings on relaxation.

A selection or appointment should not be disturbed without a clear finding on the decisive eligibility and relaxation questions, and the Tribunal's direction for fresh selection was therefore unsustainable on the material before it. Eligibility and suitability for appointment are ordinarily assessed with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of applications, unless the recruitment notification provides otherwise; a candidate becoming eligible later cannot ordinarily claim consideration for the selection already initiated. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, and the impugned order was not allowed to stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Tribunal could direct a fresh selection and disturb the appellant's appointment without recording a finding on the questions of eligibility and relaxation; (ii) whether eligibility and suitability for appointment had to be assessed with reference to the last date fixed for receiving applications.

Issue (i): whether the Tribunal could direct a fresh selection and disturb the appellant's appointment without recording a finding on the questions of eligibility and relaxation.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted competing contentions on eligibility but did not return a clear finding on whether the appellant was required to be granted relaxation at all, or whether he already satisfied the recruitment criteria on the basis of comparable pay scale and duties. It also treated the third respondent as eligible despite his own case being that relaxation was necessary to make him eligible. A direction affecting the appellant's appointment could not be sustained without first deciding these foundational issues on the material before it.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's direction for fresh selection and interference with the appellant's appointment was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether eligibility and suitability for appointment had to be assessed with reference to the last date fixed for receiving applications.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that eligibility and suitability for appointment are ordinarily to be judged as on the last date for receipt of applications, unless the recruitment notification itself provides otherwise. A candidate who becomes eligible only later cannot claim consideration on that basis for the selection already initiated.

Conclusion: Eligibility and suitability had to be determined as on the last date for applications.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal in accordance with law, and the impugned order was not allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A selection or appointment cannot be set aside without a finding on the decisive eligibility question, and eligibility for appointment must normally be tested with reference to the last date prescribed for receipt of applications.

---