Later omission of a disqualification rule does not retrospectively alter eligibility in an earlier recruitment.

The petitioner, then a Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II and an ex-serviceman, applied for the State Civil Services Examination, 2003, pursuant to an advertisement dated 9 October 2003.

He passed the preliminary examination and appeared in the main examination, but was not included in the merit list or called for interview.

His candidature was rejected because he had married before attaining 21 years of age.

The advertisement expressly made a male candidate who married before 21 ineligible.

The petitioner sought, among other reliefs, quashing of his disqualification and consideration for interview and appointment.

He argued that the relevant rule had subsequently been omitted.

The petition was filed on 22 August 2007.

1. Whether the petitioner could challenge, after participating in the selection process, the advertised eligibility condition disqualifying a male candidate who married before age 21.

2. Whether the subsequent omission of Rule 6(5) could remove the petitioner’s disqualification in the 2003 recruitment.

Rule 6(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 provided that a candidate who had married before the minimum age fixed for marriage was ineligible for appointment.

In Gendlal Patel v. M.P. Public Service Commission and Another, W.A. No. 112 of 2008, the Division Bench held that Rule 6(5), introduced with effect from 10 March 2000, applied to the 2003 recruitment and assessed the minimum marriage age by reference to the law in force on the date of marriage.

The Court also applied the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection with knowledge of an eligibility condition cannot challenge that condition only after suffering an adverse result.

The later omission of Rule 6(5), effective 24 May 2013, did not retrospectively alter eligibility for the earlier recruitment.

The advertisement expressly stated the under-21 marriage disqualification, and the petitioner knew of that condition when he applied.

He nevertheless participated in the preliminary and main examinations without challenging it, and brought his challenge only after being disqualified.

The Court held that his eligibility had to be assessed under the rules and advertisement applicable to the 2003 selection.

Following Gendlal Patel, it concluded that Rule 6(5) applied to that recruitment; its later omission could not retrospectively erase the disqualification.

The Court found the petitioner’s reliance on Nandram Ahirwar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others distinguishable.

It dismissed the writ petition, refusing the requested relief.