The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that candidates who do not possess the prescribed qualifications by the cut-off date mentioned in a recruitment advertisement cannot seek entry into the selection process on the ground that they are likely to become eligible shortly thereafter.The ruling is significant for thousands of aspirants participating in public recruitment exercises, as it says eligibility is determined strictly with reference to the deadline prescribed in the advertisement. The court has made it clear that candidates cannot seek relaxation of notified conditions merely because they are on the verge of acquiring the requisite qualification.The judgment also underscores the court’s emphasis on certainty and administrative discipline in recruitment processes. Stressing that prescribed timelines are not a mere procedural formality, the court has observed that the practice of fixing a cut-off date for acquiring essential qualifications is rooted in constitutional principles of equality, fairness and non-arbitrariness. It has also cautioned that recruitment exercises will become “open-ended and disorderly” if milestones and timelines were not clearly demarcated and uniformly enforced.Dismissing a petition filed by a candidate, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that recruitment deadlines served an important public purpose by ensuring certainty, uniformity and fairness for all candidates and that recruitment agencies were duty-bound to ensure that no confusion or uncertainty clouds the selection process.The case arose out of advertisement issued by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) on April 13, inviting online applications for recruitment to 622 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical). The last date for submission of applications was fixed as May 10.The petitioner, pursuing a Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognised institution, contended that she had completed all semesters of the course as well as the mandatory industrial training and internship requirements. However, she could not appear in one examination due to unavoidable circumstances. The examination was scheduled to be conducted in June, while the final result and diploma certificate were expected in July or August.Before approaching the court, the petitioner submitted a representation on May 7, seeking clarification and provisional permission to apply under the recruitment advertisement. She also forwarded the representation through email on the same day. According to her, no decision or clarification was communicated by the authorities despite the approaching deadline for submission of applications.During the hearing, her counsel referred to the eligibility criteria in the advertisement, which stated that candidates who had appeared or were appearing in the relevant examination and whose results were awaited could also apply. It was argued that the petitioner had substantially completed the diploma course and should therefore be permitted to participate in the recruitment process.Examining the advertisement, Justice Brar noted that the same provision expressly required such candidates to acquire the essential qualification by the last date for submission of online applications and to produce proof thereof. The court held that there was no ambiguity in the eligibility condition and that possession of the requisite qualification on or before the prescribed cut-off date was mandatory for all aspirants.Justice Brar observed that the condition prescribing the last date of submission of applications as the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification could not be termed arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Rather, fixation of such a date had a reasonable nexus with the objective of ensuring certainty, uniformity and finality in the recruitment process.The court further held that the terms and conditions of a recruitment advertisement were binding equally upon all candidates and cannot be altered midway to confer an advantage on a particular individual.Noting that the petitioner admittedly had not acquired the requisite qualification by May 10 as one examination still remained to be cleared and the final result was expected only later, the court held that the mere likelihood of acquiring the qualification at a future date did not entitle her to seek relaxation of the eligibility conditions.The court observed that the practice of prescribing a cut-off date for acquiring essential qualifications was a well-established legal principle rooted in constitutional values of equality, fairness, non-arbitrariness and administrative efficiency. It added that recruitment processes would be rendered open-ended and disorderly if timelines for achieving milestones were not clearly defined and enforced. Holding that no ground was made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Justice Brar dismissed the petition.