The court categorically held that eligibility for participation in recruitment must be determined as of the last date for submitting applications, unless recruitment rules expressly state otherwise; the judgment affirms binding Supreme Court precedent and confirms continued application of the principle for all service and employment matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/267/2025 of JESMINA RAHMAN AND 22 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. |
| CNR | GAHC010187382025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. Ashutosh Kumar |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury (Concurring) |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established Supreme Court law |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Recruitment / Eligibility |
| Questions of Law | Whether a candidate who acquires the eligibility qualification after the cut-off date can be considered eligible for recruitment if documents are verified later. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that eligibility for participation in recruitment must be determined as of the prescribed cut-off date mentioned in the recruitment advertisement—the closing date for submission of applications. This rule is mandatory unless the recruitment rules provide otherwise. Allowing post cut-off qualifications creates unfairness and undermines administrative certainty. The court relied upon established Supreme Court precedents, reiterating these principles. Accordingly, since the appellants acquired their B.Ed. degree only after the cut-off date, they were not eligible. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appellants applied in response to an advertisement dated 26.12.2023 for recruitment to posts requiring a B.Ed. degree. The cut-off date for eligibility was 20.11.2024 (last date for applications). Appellants acquired their B.Ed. degrees only after this date. Though allowed to appear in the exam subject to eligibility verification, their candidature was rejected at the verification stage. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Tribunals, and recruitment authorities across India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the principle that eligibility must be determined as of the last date for submission of applications, not at a subsequent document verification stage, unless the recruitment rules specifically provide otherwise.
- Candidature cannot be validated by acquiring qualification after the cut-off date, regardless of later, superior exam performance.
- Administrative authorities and tribunals must adhere to this “cut-off date” rule; this judgment can be cited to challenge contrary practices or interpretations.
- Relies squarely on binding Supreme Court authority, reinforcing the strict standard for cut-off dates in recruitment-related litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court focused on the central issue: whether acquisition of an eligibility qualification (here, B.Ed.) after the cut-off date but before document verification makes a candidate eligible for recruitment.
- The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had already dismissed the writ petitions on this basis.
- The judgment reiterated settled law from Rekha Chaturvedi and Ashok Kumar Sharma, both Supreme Court decisions, which prescribe that eligibility is to be assessed as of the last date specified for application.
- The rationale is both to ensure a fair process (level playing field, equal opportunity for all aspirants) and to provide administrative certainty (recruiting authority can “freeze” eligibility on a defined date).
- The court explained that permitting post cut-off qualifications results in unfairness, granting some candidates an undue advantage and excluding others who did not apply because they were not qualified on the cut-off date.
- Since appellants lacked the required B.Ed. as of 20.11.2024, their claims were unsustainable, regardless of subsequent exam scores.
- The court found no ground to interfere with the decision of the Single Judge, and dismissed the appeals.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Argued that since the recruitment scheme required eligibility documents only at the verification stage, defects in eligibility could be cured by acquiring the necessary qualification after applying and before verification.
- Emphasized that appellants had scored better marks than other candidates in the selection test.
Respondents (State, Education Department):
- Maintained that eligibility requirements must be fulfilled as of the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement (last date for submissions).
- Cited fairness and administrative certainty as reasons for this position.
Factual Background
The appellants applied in response to an advertisement dated 26.12.2023 for teaching posts that required a B.Ed. degree. The last date for submission of applications—also the announced cut-off for eligibility—was 20.11.2024. At the time of application, appellants did not possess the B.Ed. degree, though they later acquired it. They were provisionally allowed to sit for the recruitment exam, but at document verification their eligibility was rejected, prompting the present appeal following dismissal of their writ petitions.
Statutory Analysis
The court examined the recruitment notification, which stipulated a cut-off date for eligibility (20.11.2024) and did not make provision for post-submission acquisition of qualifications. The court interpreted this requirement strictly, following the Supreme Court’s consistent stance that eligibility for recruitment is to be reckoned as of the prescribed cut-off, unless recruitment rules say otherwise. No statutory flexibility was identified in the present rules or notification.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is reported; both judges concurred in the outcome and reasoning.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, changes in evidence requirements, or guidelines were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court followed and reaffirmed established Supreme Court precedent.
Citations
- Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan & Ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168
- Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 18