1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to discharge her duties as Village Surveyor at Kondapuram Village, Nellore District, despite her reporting to duty pursuant to order Ref.Rc.No.A2/624/2020 dated 04.01.2021, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents not to obstruct the petitioner in performing her duties.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she applied for the post of Village Surveyor pursuant to Notification No.Nil/2020 issued in January, 2020. She also claims that she was selected and the District Collector issued appointment proceedings in A2/624/2020/DSC-2020. Thereafter, the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records issued posting orders dated 04.01.2021 posting herself as Surveyor Grade-III at Kondapuram Village. The petitioner submitted her joining report and reported for duty. However, she was subsequently orally informed not to attend the office and was prevented from discharging her duties. According to the petitioner, she possesses the requisite qualifications and other candidates selected along with her have joined and are performing their duties without obstruction.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.4 – Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Nellore. It is stated that the Government issued a notification in January, 2020 inviting applications for the post of Village Surveyor Grade-III in Grama Sachivalayams during the period from 11.01.2020 to 31.01.2020. As per the notification, candidates must have completed 18 years and should not exceed 42 years of age. The prescribed educational qualification was Intermediate (Vocational) as Draughtsman (Civil) or Diploma in Civil Engineering / B.E. / B.Tech (Civil) along with Licensed Surveyor Certificate and the requisite experience, as on the date of notification. It is stated that the petitioner applied within the stipulated time and was included among the selected candidates. However, upon verification it was found that the petitioner had not possessed the required educational qualification as on the date of notification and had passed B.Tech only thereafter. In terms of Condition 16.1 of the notification, candidates are required to ensure their eligibility before applying for and furnishing applications to the authority concerned. If there is any incorrect information is furnished which renders the candidature liable for rejection. It is further stated that though appointment orders were issued in December, 2020 and posting orders were issued on 04.01.2021, the petitioner herein reported before the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Vakadu on 05.01.2021. On verification of records, it was found that she did not possess the requisite qualification i.e. B.Tech as on the date of notification. She was therefore informed that not to attend duties. Pursuant to which, a show-cause notice dated 16.01.2021 was issued calling upon her to submit explain why her appointment should not be cancelled. The notice was served on 20.01.2021. As the petitioner neither submitted any explanation nor appeared before the authorities, then her appointment was cancelled by proceedings dated 25.01.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are illegally preventing the petitioner from discharging her duties. It is also contended that once an appointment order was issued and the joining report was accepted, such an appointment cannot be terminated without following due process of law and without providing an opportunity of hearing. The action of the respondents is therefore arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that once an appointment order is issued and the petitioner is permitted to report for duty, the respondents cannot prevent her from discharging her duties without following the due procedure established by law and without conducting an enquiry and without initiating disciplinary proceedings and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The impugned action, it is contended, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that eligibility for appointment must be strictly determined in accordance with the recruitment notification. A candidate who does not possess the prescribed qualification as on the relevant date as per the terms of notifications, learned counsel for petitioner cannot claim any right to appointment. It is further submitted that if any appointment was made contrary to the terms of notification which does not confer any enforceable rights in favour of the candidates selected, more so, and the authorities are competent to rectify such irregular appointments.

6. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record.

7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, who allegedly did not possess the prescribed qualification as on the stipulated date in the recruitment notification, is entitled to continue in the post of Village Surveyor Grade-III or not.

8. Para 16.1 of the notification provides that candidates must ensure their eligibility before applying and that furnishing incorrect information regarding eligibility which renders the candidature liable for rejection.

9. It is well settled that eligibility for appointment to a public post must be determined strictly in accordance with the terms of the recruitment notification. The conditions prescribed therein are binding on all applicants and form the foundation of the selection process.

10. In Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan(1993 Supp (3) SCC 168), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a last date for submission of applications is prescribed, the eligibility of candidates must be determined with reference to that date and a person who acquires the requisite qualification subsequent to the cut-off date cannot claim consideration.

11. In the present case, the notification clearly stipulates that candidates must possess the prescribed qualifications as on the date of notification. The material on record indicates that the petitioner acquired the qualification only after the said date. Consequently, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post in terms of the notification. It is equally well settled that an appointment made in violation of the eligibility conditions prescribed under the recruitment rules or notification does not confer any vested or enforceable right. Even if an appointment order is issued due to inadvertence or administrative oversight, the same can be corrected once the mistake is noticed.

12. The selection procedure/criteria for Public employment must conform to the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Permitting an ineligible candidate to continue in service would not only violate the recruitment rules but also prejudice other eligible candidates.

13. In the present case, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and, in the absence of any explanation from her, proceeded to cancel the appointment. The action of the respondents in issuing terminating orders rectifying the appointment upon verification of eligibility cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

14. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, who did not possess the prescribed qualification as on the relevant date, cannot claim any legal right to the post, since no ground is made out for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

16. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.