- (1.) Appellant has filed the appeal challenging order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the learned Single, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
(3.) Vide the impugned order, number of writ petitions were disposed of. So far as the case of the appellant is concerned, the same fell within the domain of Issue No. D. Learned Single Judge, while deciding Issue No. D, has observed as under: "8. ISSUE NO. D - Candidates who submit that after revaluation result, they stand qualified, however, the date of revaluation was after last date of submission of the application form and also submit that revaluation should relate back to the date of declaration of the original result. 8.1 In Jenany J.R. Versus S. Rajeevan & Ors. , 2010 5 SCC 798, the Apex Court was examining the question as to the crucial date, which should be considered for the candidate to possess requisite qualifications for the purpose of promotion and it was held as under: "12. As has been mentioned hereinabove, the only question which is required to be considered by us in this appeal is whether on the date, vacancy had occurred i.e. on 1.7.2003, respondent No.1 was having requisite qualification or not to be appointed on the post of H.S.A.(Hindi). 13. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 was not qualified to be promoted as H.S.A on the date when the vacancy arose. It was conceded before learned Single Judge that in July, 2003, when the results of the examination were published, he had failed. However, he had applied for re-evaluation. Only after reevaluation was done, he was declared pass in September, 2003 as per the communication sent to him by Secretary, Board of Public Examinations. Thus, there was no dispute that on 1.7.2003, when the vacancy arose, admittedly, respondent No.1 was not duly qualified to be appointed as H.S.A (Hindi) as contemplated under Note 2 appended to Rule 43 of the Rules. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by learned Single Judge in detail in para 5 of the judgment." 8.2 Thus, the said candidate respondent No.1 though had passed the qualifying examination after declaration of his result upon revaluation, the Apex Court did not accept that he was eligible on the date when the vacancy arose and thus, did not accept the relate back theory to treat him as eligible on the crucial date. 8.3 The question regarding relate back of revaluation result was examined by this Court in Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.: S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1738/2012 & other connected petitions decided on 26.02.2014 and it was held that revaluation result cannot relate back to the date prior to cut-off date. 8.4 The petitioners in these writ petitions have submitted that result of revaluation was declared by the respondents on 31.07.2020 whereby they have been declared passed in Part-II Examination. The cutoff date fixed by the appointing authority was, however, 30.07.2020 and therefore, the petitioners could not fill online application form as they have not passed Part-II Examination of Diploma in DMLT upto 30.07.2020. 8.5 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revaluation result should relate back to the original declaration of Part-II Examination result and it cannot be considered as a fault of the candidates and therefore, the petitioners having become eligible, should be allowed to fill up their form offline treating them eligible as on 30.07.2020 and by interim order, this Court also passed the direction to allow them to fill up their online form, however, the same was provisional and subject to the decision of the case. 8.6 Reply has been filed and the respondents have objected the same stating that the petitioners are ineligible on the cut-off date, which is sacrosanct. Merely because, revaluation result has come later on, it will not make them eligible as on cut-off date and revaluation result cannot relate back. 8.7 In view of the law, as noticed above, in Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya (supra) and Jenany J.R. (supra), this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners' candidature cannot be said to have acquired eligibility post facto upon declaration of result of revaluation. The result of revaluation cannot relate back to the date when the original result was declared as such a view would not only to go contrary to the view taken by the Apex Court in Jenany J.R. (supra), but examine from other angle also, such a view would be unjustified: a situation is possible that revaluation result is declared of a candidate after a period of six months and in the meanwhile, entire selection process is over, therefore, can it be said that such revaluation result will make an ineligible candidate eligible and the entire selection process should be conducted individually for him? The answer is 'No'. The law as laid down by court must meet all contingencies and circumstances. 8.8 Although in the present case, result of revaluation was declared on the next day after the cut-off date, treating him eligible would be too dangerous a proposition of law and would unsettle the settled position that a person's candidature must be examined only on the cut-off date. In view thereof, all these writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed." ;