Summary
The Supreme Court upheld cancellation of Village Development Officer appointments because the appellants were still serving in the Armed Forces at the recruitment cutoff and could not claim the ex-servicemen category under the applicable framework. Later release and prospective no-objection certificates did not cure the defect. They also failed to demonstrate the required computer-certificate equivalence. Pay for work actually performed was protected from recovery, with refund of any recovery already made.
Issues
- Whether later release from the Armed Forces or an NOC established ex-servicemen eligibility at the recruitment cutoff.
- Whether the required computer qualification or its equivalence was demonstrated.
Held
- Eligibility is ordinarily assessed at the specified cutoff, generally the last application date unless validly extended. Appointment or selection at a later date does not cure ineligibility at that point. (¶ 14–17)
- Neither the rules nor advertisement clarifications treated serving personnel as ex-servicemen from a prospective date here. An NOC forecasting release could not substitute for actual eligible status at the relevant time. (¶ 14–15)
- Relaxing the cutoff for these candidates would prejudice similarly situated persons who refrained from applying because they were ineligible. (¶ 14–16)
- The ex-servicemen defect independently defeated the claim. Although detailed examination of computer equivalence was unnecessary, the appellants had also failed to establish it despite an opportunity. (¶¶ 15, 18)
- Payments for the period of actual work were not recoverable. Any recoveries already made had to be returned forthwith, notwithstanding dismissal of the appointment challenge. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed and High Court judgment upheld, without costs. Payments for actual service protected from recovery; amounts already recovered on that basis directed to be returned forthwith.