Cut-off date governs recruitment eligibility, and an illegal appointment may be annulled without a futile hearing.

Eligibility for public employment must be assessed on the date fixed by the recruitment rules or advertisement; where no cut-off date is specified, the last date for receipt of applications governs. A candidate who acquires the qualification after that date remains ineligible, and participation in the selection cannot be validated by later compliance. The statutory power to annul a University proceeding extends to a selection made contrary to the Act, Statutes, Ordinances, and constitutional norms, and a personal hearing is unnecessary where it would be a futile formality. Equity, sympathy, or the University's earlier position cannot cure an appointment that is illegal and non est in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in the absence of a cut-off date in the advertisement or rules, the last date for submission of applications governed eligibility for appointment. (ii) Whether the Visitor had power under the statute to annul the selection and whether prior hearing to the appointee was necessary. (iii) Whether equity, sympathy, or the University's earlier stand could sustain the appointment despite ineligibility.

Issue (i): Whether, in the absence of a cut-off date in the advertisement or rules, the last date for submission of applications governed eligibility for appointment.

Analysis: The governing principle is that eligibility for public employment must be determined with reference to the date fixed by the rules or the advertisement. If no date is specified, the last date for receipt of applications operates as the cut-off date. A candidate who acquires the qualification after that date cannot be treated as eligible, since doing so would alter the terms on which the recruitment was advertised and prejudice similarly situated applicants.

Conclusion: The appellant was ineligible on the relevant cut-off date and could not validly participate in the selection.

Issue (ii): Whether the Visitor had power under the statute to annul the selection and whether prior hearing to the appointee was necessary.

Analysis: The statute conferred power on the Visitor to annul any proceeding of the University that was not in conformity with the Act, Statutes, or Ordinances, after calling upon the University to show cause. The selection of a teacher made in violation of the statutory recruitment requirements and constitutional norms was a proceeding capable of annulment. On the facts, a further hearing to the appointee would have been an empty formality because the appointment was illegal and the result could not have changed.

Conclusion: The Visitor validly exercised the statutory power, and absence of a personal hearing did not vitiate the annulment.

Issue (iii): Whether equity, sympathy, or the University's earlier stand could sustain the appointment despite ineligibility.

Analysis: Equity cannot override statutory requirements, and sympathy cannot be used to validate an appointment that is illegal and non est in law. The University's earlier stand could not cure the defect where the appointment itself contravened the governing law and the constitutional mandate of equality in public employment.

Conclusion: The appointment could not be sustained on equitable grounds or on the basis of the University's earlier position.

Final Conclusion: The appointment was unlawful for want of eligibility on the prescribed date, and the annulment of the selection was legally justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no cut-off date is fixed in the recruitment rules or advertisement, eligibility must be judged with reference to the last date for receipt of applications, and an appointment made in breach of that requirement is illegal and liable to be annulled without a futile hearing.

---