Cut-off date prescribed in advertisement prevails regarding eligibility in the absence of statutory rules.

The appellant, a physically handicapped candidate, applied for the post of Chowkidar under an advertisement dated 08.07.2024

Clause 5 of the advertisement prescribed a minimum age of 18 years as of 01.01.2024

While the appellant’s actual date of birth was 16.04.2006 (making him 17 years, 8 months, and 16 days old on the cut-off date), he declared his age as 18 years in his application

Following his appointment on 24.07.2024, the Respondent-University issued a show-cause notice regarding the age discrepancy and subsequently removed him from service on 25.02.2025 for ineligibility and furnishing false information

The appellant challenged this removal in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to this intra-court appeal

1. Whether the cut-off date for determining eligibility could be challenged as being contrary to State Government circulars after the candidate had participated in the selection process

2. Whether the removal from service was justified on the grounds of furnishing factually incorrect information regarding age in the application form

The court followed the precedent established in Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262, which dictates that in the absence of statutory rules, the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement prevails for determining eligibility

The court applied the principle of estoppel, holding that a candidate cannot challenge the criteria of an advertisement after participating in the process without objection

The court also upheld the contractual condition of appointment which stipulates that furnishing incorrect information renders the appointment liable to cancellation

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the cut-off date should have been 01.01.2025 based on a 1992 Government notification, noting that such notifications do not automatically apply to a University unless specifically adopted

Applying Bhupinderpal Singh, the Court found that since no statutory rule governed the University's recruitment age, the date fixed in the advertisement (01.01.2024) was legally binding

The Court reasoned that the appellant knowingly provided false information in Clause 10 of his application to meet the eligibility criteria

The Court noted that relaxing the age requirement for the appellant would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it would be unjust to other potential candidates who refrained from applying because they did not meet the advertised age criteria

The Court further held that the removal was justified due to the appellant's failure to meet the minimum age requirement and his submission of factually incorrect data

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the Single Judge's order upholding the removal was affirmed