Holding

The fixation of 31 January 1988 as the last date for receipt of applications was not arbitrary and did not violate Article 14, so the High Court's decision was set aside.

Summary

The State of Bihar advertised vacancies for junior teaching posts in its medical colleges and fixed 31 January 1988 as the last date for receipt of applications, requiring three years of experience as a Resident or Registrar. Several junior teachers, including Ramjee Prasad, challenged the cut‑off date, alleging it was arbitrarily fixed and violated Article 14 of the Constitution because the State had previously used 30 June as the deadline. The Patna High Court struck down the date as arbitrary and ordered a fresh selection after moving the deadline to 30 June 1988. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the State’s past practice, finding that earlier advertisements typically set the deadline one to one‑and‑a‑half months after publication and that the 31 January date was consistent with that practice. The Court held that the date was not capricious or whimsical and therefore did not infringe Article 14, setting aside the High Court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 31 January 1988, deviating from the earlier practice of 30 June, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court erred in striking down the State's choice of cut‑off date as unconstitutional.
Whether the State may rely on its administrative discretion and past practice in determining eligibility dates for public appointments.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14
U.P. Higher Educational Service Commission Act, 1980s. 31-B

Subjects

Article 14arbitrarinessadministrative discretioncut‑off dateeligibility criteriapublic employmentjudicial reviewspecial leave petitionhigher education appointments

Judgment

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
A v.
RAMJEE PRASAJ? AND ORS.

APRIL 11, 1990

B [A.M. AHMADI AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.]

Constitution of India, !950-Article 14-Last date for receipt of
app/ications-ffration of by the Government in the advertisement-
Whether can be struck down.

The State of Bihar published an advertisement inviting applica- y
C tions for appointments to the junior teaching posts in medical colleges in
the State of Bihar. For the post of Assistant Professor, only such officers
who had worked as Resident or Registrar in Medical Hospitals recog-
nised for imparting M.B.B.S. studies by the Medical Council of India
and having three years experience of such post were considered eligible.
D The last date for receipt of applications was fixed as 31st January 1988.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, applications from eligible candi-
dates were received and a select list or panel was prepared for appoint-
ments to the respective posts. The respondents and some other inter-
vcnors who were working then in the Medical colleges as junior
teachers challenged the State action in fixing the 31st of January 1988 as
E the cut-off date for receipt of applications for the advertised posts, as
they had by then not completed three years which was prescribed as the
requisite experience. It was contended by them that the cut-off date was
arbitrarily fixed and was therefore violative of Article 14 of the Con-
stitution. The High Court took the view that the State Government in
fixing the 3 lst January !988 as the cut-off date, had deviated from its
p usual practice of fixing the cut-off date as 30th of June of the relevant
year. Hence this appeal by the State of Bihar by special leave ..

It is contended by the State that the decision of the High Court
was based on an erroneous premise that the cut-off date for eligibility .I
purposes was 'always' fixed as 30th of June of the relevant year in the
G past.

Allowing the appeal, this Court.

HELD: The past practice was to fix the last date for receipt of
applications a month or one and a half months after the date of actual ~
H publication of the advertisement. Following the past practice the State

468
STATE OF BIHAR v. RAMJEE PRASAD !AHMADI, J.] 469

Government fixed the last date for receipt of applications as 31st
January 1988. These who had completed the required experience of A
three years by that date were. therefore. eligible to apply for the posts·
in question. [474G-H]

The choice of date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no
particular reason is forth-coming for the same unless it is shown to be B
capricious or whimsical or wide-off the reasonable mark. The choice of
lhe date for advertising the post had to depend on several factors, e.g.,
the number of vacancies in different disciplines, the need to till up the
posts, the availability of candidates etc .. [475C-D]

Merely because the respondents and some others would qualify
for appointment if the last date for receipt of applications is shilled c
.from J !st January 1988 to 30th June 1988, is no reason for dubbing the
·-...._ earlier date as arbitrary or irrational. [4750]

The High Court was clearly in error in striking down the Govern-
ment's action of fixing the last date for receipt of application as 31st D
Janua~y 1988 as arbitrary. [475E]

Municipal Board, Pratabgarh & Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla
& Ors., [1982] 3 S.C.C. 331; Union of India & Anr. v. M/s.
Parameswaran Match Works & Ors., [1975] 1 S.C.C. 305 and Uttar
Pradesh Mahavidyalaya Tadarth Shikshak Niyamitikaran Abhiyan E
Samiti, Varanasi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1987] 2 S.C.C. 453,
referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1837
of 1990.
F
~- From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.1989 of the Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4276of 1988.

A. Sharan for the Appellants.

Pankaj Kalra and Pramod Swamp for the Respondents. G

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
r AHMADI, J. Delay condoned. Special leave granted.

This appeal arises out of the decision of the Patna High Court H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A whereby it struck down the selection made for appointments in the
junior teaching posts in medical colleges in the State and directed a
fresh selection list to be prepared after shifting the last date for receipt
of applications to 30th June, 1988. The facts giving rise to this appeal,
briefly stated, are as under.

B The State of Bihar published an advertisement inviting applica-
_tions for appointment to the posts of (i) Assistant Professor (clinical
subject); (ii) Registrar; (iii) Assistant Clinical Pathologist; (iv)
Anaesthetist; (v) Resident Medical Officer and (vi) Demonstrator
(Tutor) in non-clinical subject for different Medical Colleges and
Medical College Hospitals in the State of Bihar. For the post of
c Assistant Professor only such officers who had worked as Resident or
Registrar in Medical Hospital recognised for imparting M.B.B.S.
studies by the Medical Council of India and having three years experi-
ence of such post were considered eligible. The last date for receipt of
the application was fixed as 31st January, 1988. Pursuant to the said
advertisement applications were received from eligible candidates and
D the select list or panel was prepared for appointments to the respective
posts. The respondents and some intervenors who held appointments
as junior teachers in one or the other Medical Colleges in the State
questioned the validity of the State's action of inviting applications for
preparation of a list for appointments to the advertised posts mainly on
the ground that the last date for receipt of applications fixed as 31st _J
E January, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the cut-off date') deprived them of
the opportunity to compete for the posts as they did not complete the
requisite ~xperience criterion of three years by that time. It was con-
tended that this cut-off date was arbitrarily fixed and was, therefore,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court took the
view that the State Government had deviated from its usual practice of
IF fixing the cut-off date as 30th of June of the relevant year. This is clear
from the following observation made by the High Court:

" ..... advertisement in the past including one in the year
1983 (Annexure-1) always fixed 31st June as the date
"
(Emphasis supplied)

The use of the word 'always' indicates that the High Court was under
the impression that in the past the cut-off date was always fixed as 31st --,-
June (it should be 30th June) for the preparation of the panel for
appointments to the posts in question. Elsewhere also in the judgment
H there are observations which disclose that the High Court laboured
STATE OF BIHAR v. RAMJEE PRASAD [AHMADI, J.) 471

under the belief that the cut-off date was always fixed as 30th of June
of the relevant year. This becomes obvious from the following criti- A
cism also:

"If the State is determined to achieve such a goal and is
ready to make its activity predictable it is a welcome sign
but such desired predictability can equally be achieved by 8
adhering to the schedule of the past and maintaining 30th
June of the years as the last date for the application. If they ,
had not followed any rule in the past and they propose to
-(
,. follow a rule in this regard in future, they can do so without
causing any violation to any legal right of aay incumbent by
at least showing adherence to the reckoning date which until
now had been the last date of the month of June of the year." c
(Emphasis supplied}

"""- On this line of reasoning the Hi:;!. Court came to the conclusion· that
the State Government had acted arbitrarily in fixing the last dale fo.r
receipt of applications as 31st January, 1988 under the advertisement D
published on 29th December, 1987. The High Court while upholding-
the contention based on Article 14 further observed "we would have
ignored the arbitrariness in taking 31st January of the year ~ the
reckoning date had we not taken notice of recalcitrance of the, respon-
dents in taking no step in the years intervening the selection in the year
~-
1983 and the present selection". The High Court, therefore, felt £
satisfied that there was no rationale in departing from the past practice
and selecting 31st January, 1988 as the last date. It is felt that in all
fairness 30th of June of the year would be 'the preferable date' for
reckoning the eligibility of the candidates. The State Government was,
therefore, directed to shift the last date for receipt of the applications
1' from 31st January 1988 to 30th June, 1988 and to prepare a fresh panel F
thereafter and make appointments to the posts in question therefrom.
}
The State of Bihar feeling aggrieved by this order has approa-
ched this Court by special leave. The !eared counsel for the State
submitted that the decision of the High Court was based on an errone-
ous premise that the cut-off date for eligibility purposes was 'always' G
fixed as 30th of June of the relevant year in the past, In order to dispel
this assumption made by the High Court without examining the past
advertisements the State Government has placed before us the
r advertisements issued from 1974 to 1980 which shows that different
cut-off dates were fixed under these different advertisements and at no
time in the past between 1974 and 1980 was 30th of June fixed as the H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

relevant date. It is true that the High Court did not have the benefit of
A
the earlier advertisements but it is equally true that there was no
material on the record of the High Court for concluding that in the past
the cut-off date was 'always' fixed as 30th of June of the relevant year.
From the copies of the advertisements from 1974 to 1980 it transpires
that generally the cut-off date was fixed between one to one and a half
B months after the date of issuance of the advertisement. In the year
1983 for the first time the cut-off date was fixed as 30th June, 1983. On
some occasions in the past the cut-off date was extended, depending
on the facts and circumstances obtaining at the relevant point of time.
It, therefore, becomes obvious from this documentary evidence that
the factual premise on which the High Court has based its judgment is
clearly erroneous. The High Court was in error in thinking that in the
c past the cut-off date was always fixed as 30th of June of the relevant
year. In fact except for a solitary occasion in 1983 when the cut-off
date was fixed as 30th June, 1983, at no other time in the past was that
date fixed as the last date for receipt of the applications. No advertise-
ments were admittedly issued after 1983 and before the advertisement
D in question. The present advertisement was published on 29th
December, 1987 and the last date for receipt of applications was fixed
thereunder as 31st January, 1988 leaving a time gap of a little over a
month. As pointed out earlier, on a perusal of the advertisements
issued from 1974 to 1980 it becomes obvious that normally the cut-off
date was fixed one or one and a half months after the date of advertise-
E ment. It was, therefore, not the uniform practice of the State Govern-
ment to fix the cut-off date for eligibility purposes as 30th of June of
the relevant year as was assumed by the High Court. Once it is found
that the High Court has based its decision on an erroneous assumption
of fact, the decision cannot be allowed to stal).d.

F It was, however, argued by the learned counsel for the respon-
dents thl)t the State Government should not be permitted to introduce
new facts in the form of advertisements issued from 1974 to 1980. We
do not think that such a technical approach would be justified for the
simple reason that the assumption of fact made by the High Court is
not borne out from record. No material was placed before the High
G Court to justify the conclusion that 30th of June of the relevant year
was 'always' fixed as the cut-off date in the past. The High Court's
assumption of fact is, therefore, based on no evidence at all. We have,
therefore, thought it fit to permit the State Government to place mate-
rial on record to justify its contention that the High Court had commit-·
ted a grave error in assuming that in the past the cut-off date was
H always fixed as 30th of June of the relevant year.
STATE OF BIHAR v. RAMJEE PRASAD [AHMADI, !.I 473

It was next contended that this Court should not interfere in
exercise of its extra-ordinary Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the A
~· Constitution. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the
observations of this Court in Municipal Board. Pratabgarh & Anr. v.
Mahendra Singh Chawla & Ors., [1982] 3 SCC 331 wherein this Court
while correcting an error of law refused to interfere with the decision of
the High Court directing reinstatement of the workman on the finding B
that the termination order was invalid. That was, however, a case
where the Court came to the conclusion that the employee was a
-.,, capable hand and his services were actually needed by the appellant-
Municipal Board. It was in those special circumstances that this Court
'f while correcting the error refused to interfere with the order of rein-
statement. The decision, therefore, turned on the special facts of that
case. c
-1
The appellant invited our attention to two decisions of this
- ""' Court, namely, Union of India & Anr. v. M/s.Parameswaran Match
Works & Ors., [1975]1 SCC 305 and Uttar Pradesh Mahavidyalaya
Tadarth Shikshak Niyamitikaran Abhiyan Samiti, Varanasi v. State of D
U.P. & Ors. [ 1987] 2 sec 453 in support of its contention that the
High Court was in error in holding that the State had acted arbitrarily
in fixing the cut-off date. In the first mentioned case by Notification
No. 162 dated 21st July, 1967, which superseded the earlier notifica-
tions, provision was made that if a manufacturer gave a declaration
\_ that the total clearance from the factory will not exceed 75 million E
matches during a financial year, he would be entitled to a concessional
rate of duty.This Notification was amended by Notification No.205
dated 4th September, 1967, clause (b) whereof confined the conces-
sion, inter alia to factories whose total clearance of matches during the
financial year 1967-68, as per declaration made by the manufacturer
" before 4th September, 1967, was not estimated to exceed 75 million
matches. Thus, the concessional rate of duty could be availed of only
F

~ by those who made the declaration before 4th September, 1967. The
respondent was not a manufacturer before 4th September, 1967 as he
had sought for a licence on 5th September, 1967 and was therefore, in
no position to made the declaration before 4th September, 1967. The
respondent, therefore, challenged the cut-off date of 4th September, G
1967 as arbitrary. Dealing with the contention, this Court observed as
under:

" r "'In the matter of granting concession or exemption from
tax, the Government has a wide latitude of discretion. It
need not give exemption or concession to everyone in vrder H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

that it may grant the same to some. As we said, the object
A
of granting the concessional rate of duty was to protect the
smaller units in the industry from the competition by the
larger ones and that object would have been frustrated, if,
by ,adopting the device of fragmentation, the larger units
could become the ultimate beneficiaries of the bounty."
B
While pointing out that a classification could be founded on a particu-
lar date and yet be reasonable, this Court observed that the choice of a
date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary "I"
even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless the
circumstances show it to be capricious or whimsical. When it is neces- y
sary for the legislature or the authorities to fix a line or a date and
c there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the deci-
~

sion of the legislature or authority must be accepted unless it is shown !-
to be capricious or whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark. In the
~
second mentioned case this Court, while upholding the constitutional
validity of section 31-B of the U.P.Higher Educational Service Com-
D mission Act, 1980, answered two contentions, namely,(!) adoption of
the cut-off date in the said section as 3rd January, 1984 for the
purposes of regularisation of the services of ad-hoc teachers appointed
by the management of the affiliated colleges was arbitrary and irra-
tional and violative of Article 14 inasmuch as equals were treated as
unequals, and (ii) the Legislature could not arbitrarily adopt 3rd
January, 1984 as the cut-off date for regularisation of the services of _._J
E
ad-hoc teachers merely because that was the date on which the 1983
order expired. Agreeing with the High Court that the fixation of the
date for the purposes of regularisation was not arbitrary or irrational,
this Court observed that the object of section 31-B was to regularise
the services of ad-hoc teachers appointed under the 1983 order till 3rd '<.
F January, 1984.Ad-hoc teachers who had been appointed prior to that
date had legal sanction and therefore they constituted a distinct class.
This Court, therefore, felt that the legislature could not have adopted -4:
any other basis for purposes of regularisation and refused to interfere
with the High Court's order.
F

G In the present case as pointed out earlier the past practice was to
fix the last date for receipt of applications a month or one and a half
months after the date of actual publication of the advertisement.
I•
Follwing the past practice the State Government fixed the last date for
receipt of applications as 31st January 1988. Those who had completed
1
'
the required experience of three years by that date were, therefore,
H eligible to apply for the posts in question. The respondents and some
STATE OF BIHAR v. RAMJEE PRASAD {AHMADI, J.] 475

of the intervenors who were not completing the required experience by A
that date, therefore, challenged the fixation of the last date as
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is obvious
that in fixing the last date as 31st January, 1988 the State Government
had only followed the past practice and if the High Court's attention
had been invited to this fact it would perhaps have refused to interfere
since its interference is based on the erroneous belief that the past B
practice was to fix 30th of June of the relevant year as the last date for
receipt of applications. Except for leaning on a past practice the H~
Court has not assigned any reasons for its choice of the date. As
pointed out by this Court the choice of date cannot be dubbed as
arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the same
unless it is shown to be capricious or whiinsical or wide off the reason- c
able mark. The choice of the date for advertising the posts had to
depend on several factors, e.g., the number of vacancies in different
disciplines, the need to fill up the posts, the availability of candidates,
etc. It is not the case of any one that experienced candidates were not
available in sufficient numbers on the cut-off date. Merely because the
respondents and some others would qualify for appointment if the last D
date for receipt of applications is shifted from 31st January, 1988 to
30th June, 1988 is no reason for dubbing the earlier date as arbitrary or
irrational. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was
clearly in error in striking down the Government's action of fixing the
last date for receipt of applications as 3 lstJanuary, 1988 as arbitrary.
E
It was lastly contended that the State Government had given an
undertaking to the High Court that 'no appointment shall be made
from any previous panel and that, as decided by this Court, if the
panel, which is likely to be prepared pursuant to the advertisement in
question, is allowed, appointments shall be made from the same panel
or if that panel is not allowed and a new panel is required io be F
prepared, as direc~ed by this Court, aJlpointments shall be made from
the same panel'. This undertaking, in our opinion, cannot preclude
the State from challenging the decision of the High Court.

In the result, this appeal succeeds. The impugned decision of the
High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition which has given rise to G
this appeal will stand dismissed with no order as to costs throughout.

Y.Lal Appeal allowed.
T