Fresh advertisement for public recruitment must update qualification cut-off dates to ensure fair competition and inclusivity.

In 2022, U.P. Higher Education Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 51 for Assistant Professor posts.

A Coordinate Bench quashed the advertisement specifically regarding 75 B.Ed. posts for being non-compliant with N.C.T.E. Regulations, directing a fresh advertisement.

After unsuccessful appeals by the State, seeking to fill 107 posts (up from 75), the Commission issued a press note/notification dated 28.04.2026, retaining the original cut-off date for eligibility as 31.08.2022.

The petitioners, who became qualified after the 2022 date but before the 2026 notification, challenged this cut-off date.

1. Whether the selection process for Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) constitutes a fresh and independent recruitment process separate from the original Advertisement No. 51 of 2022.

2. Whether the Commission can legally maintain a 2022 cut-off date for eligibility in a notification issued in 2026, thereby excluding candidates who attained qualifications in the interim.

The principle of administrative fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The specific judicial mandate from the previous litigation (Writ-A No. 12803 of 2022), which directed the issuance of a "fresh advertisement" strictly in accordance with N.C.T.E. norms.

The doctrine of "Rules of the Game," referencing Km. Lakshmi and others vs. State of U.P. (2026) regarding the application of old vs. new statutory provisions during a transitional legislative phase.

The Court reasoned that the 2022 judicial order quashing the B.Ed. advertisement effectively "separated" these posts from the original 33 subjects, making the selection process independent.

The Court observed that because the number of posts increased from 75 to 107, it was evident that vacancies from subsequent years were included; therefore, retaining a 2022 cut-off date for a 2026 advertisement is arbitrary.

Given that four years had passed and the initial application fees were ordered to be refunded, the Court held that a fair competition necessitates allowing newly eligible candidates to participate.

The Court allowed the use of old recruitment rules to maintain uniformity with the other 33 subjects, provided it did not prejudice the candidates.

The Court directed the Commission to issue a "Corrigendum" within two weeks to allow all eligible candidates to apply.

The Court held that while the eligibility date must be updated, the Commission may conduct the examination under the old statutory provisions for the sake of procedural uniformity, or under the new Act if the State so decides, as long as it does not cause prejudice.