Govt Of NCT Of Delhi And Another vs Upkar And Another - Educational Qualification Cut-off Date

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |
| Negatively Viewed by Court | |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 6, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Another vs Upkar And Another on 27 March, 2026

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 17.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 27.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 27.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 6873/2024 & CM APPL. 28683/2024
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
& ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (Services) with
Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Ms.Aliza Alam and
Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat,
Advocates.
versus
UPKAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
for R-1.
Mr. Karn Bhardwaj and
Mr.Rajat Gaba, Advocates for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1.   The present Petition, filed by the Petitioners, prays for issuance
   

   of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.12.2023
   [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by learned
   Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.
   No. 1888/2022, whereby the said Original Application filed by the
   Respondent No.1 was allowed.

2.   The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition
   

is whether a candidate is required to possess the requisite educational
qualification as on the cut-off date prescribed under the recruitment
process.
FACTUAL MATRIX

1.    In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
                Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
   

2.    The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [„DSSSB‟]/
                Petitioner No.2, pursuant to a requisition received from the Municipal
                Corporation of Delhi [„MCD‟], issued Advertisement No. 01/2021
                dated 04.03.2021 inviting applications for various posts, including the
                post of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 32/21. The last
                date for submission of applications was stipulated as 14.04.2021. The
                advertisement, in unequivocal terms, provided that the eligibility
                criteria, including educational qualifications, age and experience, shall
                be determined as on the closing date of submission of applications.
   

3.    The relevant extract of the vacancy notification is reproduced as
                under:-
   

Post Code- 32/21 Name of Post- SPECIAL
EDUCATOR
(Primary)
Municipal
Corporation of
Delhi
Number of (Total-1126)-(EWS-54, UR-487, OBC-328, SC-I 64, ST-93)
Vacancies:- including PwD(PH(VH-22), PH(OH-23)
Educational Essential:- (I) Senior Secondary School Certificate
Qualification:- (12th Class or its equivalent from a
recognized Board/ Institute (II) 2 years
Diploma programme in Special
Education recognized by the

                                                               Rehabilitation Council of India in any
                                                              category of Disability or any other
                                                              equivalent qualification approved by
                                                              the Rehabilitation Council of India.
                                                              (III) Pass In Central Teacher Eligibility
                                                              Test conducted by Central Board of
                                                              Secondary Education.
                                        Desirable             Nil
                     Experience:-       Essential:-           Nil
                                        Desirable:-           Nil
                     Pay Scale:-        Rs. 9300-34800+Grade Pay 4200/- Group: 'B'
                     Age Limit-         Not exceeding 30 years, Age Relaxation will be given as per
                                        table at para 6. This post is identified suitable for PwD (VH& OH) candidates as per requisition
                     of the user department.

R. No. DI ADE/TRC/EDU./HQ/SDMC/2021 /I 040 Dt. 25/01/2021

                         "4. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:

... ... ... ...

(ii) The educational qualification, age, experience etc. as stipulated in
advertisement shall be determined as on the closing date of
submission of application."

"7. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR CANDIDATES

... ... ... ...

(viii) The educational qualification, age, experience and other
eligibility conditions against the post shall be determined as on the
closing date of online submissions of application. "
A perusal of the aforesaid reveals that the essential educational
qualification prescribed for the aforesaid post included, inter alia, a
two-year Diploma Programme in Special Education recognized by the
Rehabilitation Council of India, in addition to other qualifications
which are not relevant for the adjudication of the present case.

1.   Respondent No.1 applied for the said post under the OBC
                category and appeared in the Tier-I written examination conducted by
                DSSSB on 17.10.2021. Thereafter, on 05.01.2022, the DSSSB
                uploaded on its official website the normalized marks obtained by the
                candidates who had appeared in the said examination. Respondent
                No.1 secured 85.54 marks and was provisionally shortlisted for the
                purpose of uploading his e-dossier. Subsequently, vide notice dated
                26.05.2022, the DSSSB informed the candidates about deficiencies
                noticed in their respective e-dossiers and granted them an opportunity
                to rectify the same. Insofar as Respondent No.1 is concerned, he was
                specifically directed to upload the certificate and mark sheets in
                respect of the two-year Diploma in Special Education, completed prior
                to the cut-off date/closing date of the application form, i.e.,
                14.04.2021.
   

2.   In continuation of the aforesaid notice, a further opportunity
                was granted to the candidates vide communication dated 14.06.2022,
                reiterating the requirement to upload proof of having completed the
                two-year Diploma in Special Education prior to the cut-off date, i.e.,
                14.04.2021. However, Respondent No.1 failed to furnish the requisite
                proof demonstrating that he had completed the said Diploma as on the
                cut-off date. On the contrary, the material placed on record indicates
                that Respondent No.1 completed the two-year Diploma programme
                only on 10.06.2021, i.e., subsequent to the cut-off date.
   

3.   In view thereof, the candidature of Respondent No.1 was
                rejected by the DSSSB vide communication dated 01.07.2022 on the
                ground that he did not possess the requisite educational qualification
   
                 as on the cut-off date.
   

4.   Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, Respondent No.1
                approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.
                No. 1888/2022, seeking, inter alia, quashing of the rejection notice
                dated 01.07.2022 to the extent it pertained to him and a direction to
                the Petitioners to consider his candidature for appointment to the post
                in question.
   

5.  The Tribunal, by way of the Impugned Order, allowed the said
                Original Application primarily on the following grounds:
   

i. that the Selection Board itself had granted an opportunity to the
candidates to remove deficiencies vide notice dated 14.06.2022, and
since Respondent No.1 had completed his Diploma in June, 2021, i.e.,
prior to the issuance of the said notice, his candidature ought to have
been considered;

ii. that the eligibility of a candidate is liable to be assessed with
reference to the date of examination; and

iii. that the delay in completion of the Diploma by Respondent
No.1 was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, which constituted a
mitigating circumstance warranting consideration.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
11. Contentions of the Petitioners

                 11.1. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submitted that the
                 Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law

                  and contrary to the settled legal position governing determination of
                 eligibility of candidates in recruitment processes. It was contended
                 that the advertisement in question categorically stipulated that the
                 eligibility criteria, including educational qualifications, were required
                 to be fulfilled as on the cut-off date, i.e., 14.04.2021, and the said
                 condition was binding on all candidates.

11.2. It was submitted that it is an admitted position on record that
Respondent No.1 had not successfully completed the two-year
Diploma in Special Education as on the cut-off date, inasmuch as he
had not cleared one of the papers and was declared successful only
upon declaration of the supplementary result on 10.06.2021, i.e.,
subsequent to the cut-off date.

11.3. It was further submitted that mere appearance in an examination
does not confer eligibility and that a candidate can be said to possess
the requisite qualification only upon successful completion of the
course and declaration of the result. In this regard, reliance is placed
on the settled principle that the result of an examination does not
relate back to the date of examination.

11.4. It was further contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding
that the eligibility of a candidate is to be assessed with reference to the
date of examination, which finding is directly contrary to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court that eligibility conditions must be
satisfied as on the last date for submission of applications.

11.5. It was also submitted that the deficiency notices issued by the
DSSSB were only intended to afford an opportunity to candidates to

                  furnish documentary proof of eligibility already possessed as on the
                 cut-off date and could not, in any manner, be construed as permitting
                 acquisition of qualification subsequent to the cut-off date. It was
                 further submitted that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the delay
                 occasioned due to the COVID-19 pandemic is wholly misplaced,
                 inasmuch as equitable considerations cannot override the express
                 terms of the advertisement or the settled principles governing public
                 employment.

11.6. It was further contended that permitting Respondent No.1 to be
considered despite his ineligibility as on the cut-off date would result
in grave prejudice to other similarly situated candidates who, being
aware of their ineligibility, may not have applied at all, thereby
violating the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

1.  Contentions of the Respondents
   
                12.1. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondents
                supported the Impugned Order and contended that Respondent No.1
                had pursued the two-year Diploma in Special Education for the
                academic session 2018-2020 and had substantially completed the
                course well prior to the cut-off date. It is submitted that the
                examinations pertaining to the said Diploma were also undertaken
                prior to the cut-off date.
   

12.2. It was submitted that the requirement under the advertisement
was that the Diploma ought to have been "completed" prior to the cut-
off date, and not that the certificate evidencing such qualification must

                  have been issued before the said date. It was argued that Respondent
                 No.1 had completed the academic course and had appeared in the
                 requisite examinations before the cut-off date, and therefore, he ought
                 to be treated as having possessed the requisite qualification.

12.3. It was further contended that the deficiency notices issued by
the DSSSB, particularly the notice dated 14.06.2022, afforded an
opportunity to the candidates to cure deficiencies, and since
Respondent No.1 had completed his Diploma in June, 2021, i.e., prior
to the issuance of the said notice, the Petitioners were required to
consider his candidature.

12.4. It was also submitted that the delay in declaration of the result
of the supplementary examination, which was ultimately declared on
10.06.2021, was on account of circumstances beyond the control of
Respondent No.1, particularly the disruption caused by the COVID-19
pandemic. It is argued that the respondent cannot be penalized for
such delay.

12.5. It was further contended that the eligibility of a candidate ought
to be assessed with reference to the date of examination, and not
strictly with reference to the date of declaration of result, and in
support of this submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 17.03.2023.

12.6. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Narender Singh v. State of Haryana1, to contend that a candidate
ought not to be denied consideration on technical grounds, particularly

                     (2022) 3 SCC 286

                  where the deficiency is subsequently cured.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

1.  This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
                on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record. Before
                adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to examine the
                factual position with regard to the acquisition of the requisite
                educational qualification by Respondent No.1.
   

2.  The record reveals that Respondent No.1 took admission in the
                two-year Diploma Programme in Special Education for the academic
                session 2018-2020. The first-year examination was conducted in July,
                2019 and the result thereof was declared on 27.09.2019. It is not in
                dispute that Respondent No.1 failed in two theory subjects in the said
                examination.           Thereafter,   Respondent   No.1   appeared   in   the
                supplementary examination for clearing the said subjects, which was
                conducted in December, 2019. However, as per the result declared in
                February, 2020, he was unable to clear one out of the two papers. It is
                further evident that Respondent No.1 appeared in the second-year
                examination in December, 2020.
   

3.  The supplementary examination for clearing the remaining
                paper of the first year was initially scheduled to be held in January,
                2021; however, the same was eventually conducted in March, 2021.
                The result of the said supplementary examination was declared on
                10.06.2021, upon which Respondent No.1 was declared to have
                successfully completed the two-year Diploma Programme. It is,
                therefore, manifest that as on the cut-off date prescribed under the
   
                 advertisement, i.e., 14.04.2021, Respondent No.1 had not been
                declared successful in the Diploma course and had not acquired the
                requisite qualification.
   

4.  The advertisement, more particularly Clauses 4(ii) and 7(viii),
                unequivocally stipulates that the educational qualification, age,
                experience and other eligibility conditions are to be determined as on
                the closing date of submission of the application.
   

5.  The Tribunal has erred in observing that the deficiency notice
                dated 14.06.2022 amounted to an extension of the cut-off date for
                determining eligibility. A plain reading of the said notice makes it
                abundantly clear that the candidates were merely afforded an
                opportunity to upload documents in proof of their eligibility already
                possessed as on the cut-off date. The notice specifically required the
                candidates to upload mark sheets in respect of the two-year Diploma
                in Special Education completed prior to the cut-off date/closing date
                of submission of the application form, i.e., 14.04.2021. Thus, the
                deficiency notice cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed
                as extending the cut-off date or permitting acquisition of qualification
                subsequent thereto. The finding returned by the Tribunal in this regard
                is, therefore, factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.
   

6.  The sanctity of the cut-off date for determining eligibility in a
                recruitment process is required to be strictly maintained. This issue is
                no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled by a catena of
                decisions of the Supreme Court which consistently emphasize that
                certainty and uniformity in recruitment processes are paramount. In [Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38243218/), the
                Supreme Court has categorically held that the eligibility of a candidate
                must be determined with reference to the last date prescribed for
                submission of applications and that the result of an examination does
                not relate back to the date of examination.
   

7.   The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in [Rakesh Bakshi v.
                State of J&K3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127540315/), wherein it has been held that a qualification acquired
                after the cut-off date cannot render a candidate eligible. In view of the
                aforesaid settled legal position, the eligibility of Respondent No.1 was
                required to be assessed strictly with reference to the cut-off date, i.e.,
                14.04.2021.
   

8.   The Tribunal has further erred in holding that the eligibility is to
                be assessed with reference to the last date of examination, while
                placing reliance upon a judgment dated 17.03.2023 passed by the
                High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos. 608 and 609 of 2023
                captioned [The Registrar & Anr. v. S.Lakshmi & Anr. The](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72019915/) reliance
                placed on [the said judgment](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72019915/) is misconceived and wholly inapplicable
                to the facts of the present case.
   

9. In the said decision, the High Court was concerned with a
   situation where the candidate had already appeared in and completed
   the final examination prior to the relevant cut-off date, and the delay
   was only in the declaration of results and issuance of the certificate,
   which was held to be an administrative delay not attributable to the
   candidate. In those circumstances, it was held that the acquisition of

                    (2013) 11 SCC 58
   
                    (2019) 3 SCC 511
   
                 qualification would relate back to the date of the last examination.
   

10.  The present case, however, stands on an entirely different
                 footing. As noticed hereinabove, Respondent No.1 had not
                 successfully cleared all the papers of the Diploma course as on the
                 cut-off date and had, in fact, failed in one of the theory papers on more
                 than one occasion. The requisite qualification was acquired by him
                 only upon declaration of the result of the supplementary examination
                 on 10.06.2021. Thus, this is not a case of mere delay in declaration of
                 result, but a case where the candidate had not, in fact, acquired the
                 essential qualification as on the cut-off date.
    

11. In view thereof, the principle laid down by the High Court of
    Judicature at Madras in S.Lakshmi (supra) is clearly distinguishable
    and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the
    law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra) continues to govern the field, which unequivocally lays down
    that a candidate can be said to possess a qualification only upon
    successful completion of the examination process, which, in the facts
    of the present case, occurred upon declaration of the result. It is well
    settled that in case of any conflict, the law declared by the Supreme
    Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is binding and
    prevails over judgments of High Courts.

12.  The Tribunal has also erred in placing reliance upon the delay
                 occasioned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is evident from the
                 record that Respondent No.1 had appeared not only in the
                 supplementary examination held in December, 2019 but had also
                 appeared in the second-year examination, and thereafter, in the
    
                  supplementary examination conducted in March, 2021. In any event,
                 the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement was never extended.
    

13.  The recruitment process itself was initiated and conducted
                 during the subsistence of the pandemic, and a large number of
                 candidates, i.e., as many as 6,653 candidates, participated in the
                 examination. In such circumstances, the sanctity of the cut-off date
                 cannot be diluted on the ground of delay in declaration of results, as
                 the same would lead to uncertainty and arbitrariness in the recruitment
                 process.
    

14.  It is also not in dispute that Respondent No.1 had failed in one
                 of the theory papers on two occasions, firstly in July, 2019 and
                 thereafter in December, 2019, and was able to clear the same only
                 upon declaration of the result on 10.06.2021. Consequently,
                 Respondent No.1 cannot be said to have been in possession of the
                 requisite qualification as on the cut-off date.
    

15.  The reliance placed by learned counsel representing the
                 Respondent             No.1 upon [Narender   Singh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55579448/) (supra)   is clearly
                 distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the requirement pertained to
                 submission of a „No Objection Certificate‟ from the employer, which
                 was furnished at the stage of interview, and the Supreme Court found
                 that no fault could be attributed to the candidate. In the present case,
                 however, the issue pertains to non-possession of an essential
                 educational qualification as on the cut-off date, which goes to the root
                 of eligibility.
    

16.  As noticed hereinabove, Respondent No.1 had not successfully
    
                  completed the Diploma course as on the cut-off date, and therefore,
                 cannot claim parity with the facts of the aforesaid decision. Any
                 relaxation in favour of Respondent No.1 would amount to rewriting
                 the terms of the advertisement and would be violative of the principle
                 of equality, inasmuch as similarly situated candidates who did not
                 possess the requisite qualification as on the cut-off date may have
                 chosen not to apply.
    

CONCLUSION

1.  In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
                considered opinion that the Impugned Order passed by the learned
                Tribunal is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
   

2.  Accordingly, the present Petition is allowed. The Impugned
                Order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1888/2022 is hereby
                quashed and set aside. The rejection of the candidature of Respondent
                No.1 vide communication dated 01.07.2022 is upheld.
   

3.  The present Petition stands disposed of. The pending
                application also stands closed.
   

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.

MARCH 27, 2026
sp/pal