Published on: October 27, 2023 at 12:06 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Malik Mazhar Sultan V. U.P. Public Service Commission (2006)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. It is held that if a candidate’s qualification is as per prescribed statutory rules, then such Candidates deems to have fulfilled the qualification. It is held that after being selected for the post denying appointment to a candidate is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence.
21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules.
The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
