Subsequent Employment Post-Cut-Off Date Cannot Retrospectively Divest Vested Eligibility Rights or Overreach Binding Judicial Mandates.

The Petitioner, a graduate in Agriculture, applied for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Graduate) under an advertisement dated 25.11.2014 issued by Respondent No. 4 University.

He sought horizontal reservation as a Project Affected Person (PAP) of the "same establishment".

Despite a 2022 High Court judgment (WP No. 8479/2019) setting aside the appointment of Respondent No. 7 and directing the University to consider the Petitioner’s appointment from 06.08.2019, the University rejected his candidature via a communication dated 15.09.2023.

The rejection was based on a Deputy Collector’s opinion that the Petitioner had "availed benefit" of his PAP certificate by taking a separate temporary job in 2020.

Furthermore, the University issued a corrigendum on 07.06.2023 to retroactively change Respondent No. 7’s category to "General" to retain him.

1. Whether the respondent authorities could deny appointment based on a ground (temporary employment) already adjudicated and dismissed in a previous binding judicial proceeding?

2. Whether eligibility for a post must be determined as of the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement or by subsequent events?

3. Whether administrative authorities can issue corrigendums to alter selection categories to circumvent or neutralize a prior court judgment?

The court applied the principle of judicial discipline and the finality of judgments, noting that findings in a reasoned judgment bind the parties.

It relied on the dictum in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18, establishing that eligibility conditions must be satisfied on the prescribed cut-off date and subsequent events cannot retrospectively defeat accrued rights.

It further held that Section 6 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 provides statutory reservation that cannot be overridden by executive instructions or Government Resolutions (specifically the GR dated 21.01.1980).

The Court observed that the 2022 judgment had already conclusively determined that the Petitioner’s temporary employment did not disqualify him.

By resurrecting the same ground through a "clarification" from the Deputy Collector, the University acted in defiance of judicial directions.

The Court emphasized that the Petitioner’s eligibility was fixed as of 25.12.2014 (the cut-off date); his 2020 temporary job was irrelevant to his 2014 candidacy.

Regarding the University's corrigendum to save Respondent No. 7’s job, the Court slammed it as "institutional impropriety" and an attempt to "overreach" judicial pronouncements.

The Court clarified that administrative discretion does not extend to neutralizing constitutional court orders through "administrative stratagem".

It held that the University must adhere to the high court’s previous directions as the issue of "fitness" was already settled.

The Court directed Respondents to issue an appointment order to the Petitioner for the post of Agricultural Assistant (Graduate) under the General PAP category within four weeks.

The appointment is to take effect from 06.08.2019 with all consequential benefits except back wages.

While expressing strong disapproval of the University's conduct regarding Respondent No. 7, the Court refrained from disturbing his continued service as no General category candidate had challenged his re-classification.