Eligibility for “No Government Job” benefit is determined as of the application cut-off date.

The petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 12 of 2019 for the post of Fitter Instructor (Practical), Category No. 29, in the EWS category.

The last date for submitting applications was initially 20.08.2019 and was subsequently extended to 26.09.2019.

The petitioner was declared successful in the final result dated 27.10.2022, having secured 65 marks, including 5 marks under the socio-economic criterion of “No Government Job”.

The petitioner had accepted appointment as Tradesman Mate in the Indian Navy with effect from 20.03.2020, pursuant to an appointment letter dated 22.05.2020, and subsequently left that employment on medical grounds.

By email dated 09.05.2023 and order dated 23.06.2023, the respondents proposed to withdraw the 5 socio-economic marks on the ground that the petitioner had entered government service after the application cut-off date.

The petitioner challenged the withdrawal and sought appointment with consequential benefits, contending that his subsequent appointment in the Navy could not affect his eligibility as on 26.09.2019.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the settled principle that a candidate’s eligibility must ordinarily be determined with reference to the cut-off date prescribed in the recruitment advertisement.

Relying on Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54, and Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262, the Court held that subsequent events cannot ordinarily retrospectively invalidate eligibility existing on the prescribed cut-off date.

Accordingly, employment obtained after the relevant cut-off date could not, by itself, defeat the petitioner’s claim under the “No Government Job” criterion.

The Court found that the petitioner had not entered government service by the extended application cut-off date of 26.09.2019. His Indian Navy appointment took effect only from 20.03.2020, several months thereafter.

Applying the cut-off-date principle, the Court held that the subsequent appointment could not retrospectively render him ineligible for consideration under the selection process.

Nevertheless, the Court directed that the disputed 5 marks be excluded from the petitioner’s total score.

Since he still secured 60 marks after such exclusion—above the General-category cut-off of 59 and the EWS-category cut-off of 53—he remained within the zone of selection.

The withdrawal of the 5 marks, therefore, did not justify denying him consideration for appointment.

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for appointment after excluding the 5 marks awarded under the “No Government Job” criterion and to pass an appropriate order within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The petitioner was held entitled to consequential benefits from the date on which his counterparts joined, including notional benefits relating to pay fixation and seniority; however, actual salary was directed to be paid only from the date of his actual joining.