Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
The Rajasthan Public Service … vs Kumkum Jodha (2025:Rj-Jd:35948-Db) on 12 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 169/2025
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Lavanshu Sankhla S/o Pushpendra, Aged About 23 Years,
Inside Nagori Gate, Vijay Chowk, Sakhla Bhawan,
Jodhpur, (Rajasthan).
2. The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director Of Prosecution, Department Of Home,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 130/2025
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kumkum Jodha D/o Laxman Singh Jodha, Aged About 23
Years, Sajjan Magan, 215, Hanwant B Street No 19, B.j.s.
Colony, Jodhpur, (Rajasthan).
2. The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director Of Prosecution, Department Of Home,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 135/2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mansi Vyas D/o Vijay Shankar Vyas, Aged About 23 Years,
Brahmpuri Chowk Mohallah, Choongrah, Near Laxmninath
Bhandar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (2 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
Secretary, Department Of Prosecution, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.
3. Home Department, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 244/2025
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Chairman, Ajmer.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Shivangi Pathalk D/o Tej Prakash Pathak, Aged About 22 Years,
D-226 Sushant City, Pali Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 279/2025
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Chairman, Ajmer.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Rohit Prajapati S/o Bal Krishana Prajapati, Aged About 22
Years, R/o 58-A, Ladha Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
2. Dewal Kumari D/o Girdhari Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/
o Saran Nagar, Digadi Kallan, Jodhpur.
3. Shubham Bhati S/o Balkishan Bhati, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Shardapuram Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Divya Tanwar D/o Prakash Tanwar, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Purani Gannai, Bikaner.
5. Lavish Bhati S/o Mahendra Pratap Bhati, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Bhati Billa, Nayadarwaja, Kakku Valo Ki Pol,
Nagaur, (Raj.).
6. Asish Dangra S/o Goverdhan Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o 5, Chand Dairy Ke Pass, Gandhi Nagar, Dhola Bhatta,
Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (3 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
7. Vipashyana Sharma D/o Ashok Sharma, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Q-2, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore.
8. Pushpendra Sharma S/o Mahesh Krishan Sharma, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Post Bassi Jaipur.
9. Pooja Choudhary D/o Rajendra Choudhary, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vishvakarma Nagar, Opp. Shiv Cold Store,
Behind Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur.
10. Moxita Verma D/o Mahendra Verma, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 2-188 Mp Colony, Bangla Nagar, Bikaner.
11. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Law And Legal, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 631/2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Prasiddhi Jain D/o Pradeep Kumar Jain, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Naugama, Banswara, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Prosecution, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Home Department, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 789/2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shivani Puri D/o Hari Kishan Goswami, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 28-B Vayu Vihar Colony, Jhalamand Circle,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Prosecution, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.
3. Home Department, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (4 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 823/2025
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Chairman, Ajmer.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Harshit Sharma S/o Shri Promod Kumar, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Kushal Sadan, Plot No. 13, Imratiya Bera,
Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Harshit Vyas S/o Shri Jeetendra Vyas, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Nathawato Ki Gali, Tapi Bawari, Jodhpur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
Mr. Veeram Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG with
Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, AGC
Ms. Abhilasha Bora, AGC
Mr. Pravin Vyas
Ms. Khushbu Choudhary
Mr. Dheeraj Jangid
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
Reportable
12/08/2025
1. Brief facts of the case are that Rajasthan Public Service
Commission issued an advertisement dated 07.03.2024 for the
recruitment of Assistant Prosecution Officer under Rajasthan
Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (‘Rules of 1978’), to
fill 181 vacancies. The selection process was notified in two
stages: a preliminary examination followed by a written main
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (5 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
examination. The dispute was regarding the date by which
candidates must have qualified the required eligibility criterion of
an LLB degree, as prescribed in the advertisement.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-RPSC has drawn attention
of this Court towards a column in the advertisement, which is
quoted as below:
vfuok;Z ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk %
(1) Degree in Law (Professional) or integrated Law Course from a
University established by law in India.
(2) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and
knowledge of Rajasthani dialects and social customs of Rajasthan.
Note%
1- vH;FkhZ dks okafNr ‘kS{kf.kd vgZrk ¼’kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] vuqHko o
vk;q bR;kfn½ gksus ij gh online vksuykbZu vkosnu djuk pkfg;s
rFkkfi vk;ksx }kjk vH;FkhZ dks vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= dh vvuqer
la’ks/ku frfFk rd vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= dks izR;kgfjr
(Withdrawal) foMªkoy djus dk foyEi miyC/k gksxkA
2- vlR; ,oa xyr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu djuk rFkk vgZrk
ugha gksus ij Hkh mls izR;kgfjr (Withdrawal) foMªkoy ugha fd;k
tkuk Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ¼IPC-½ dh kkjk 182 ds rgr n.Muh;
vijk/k gSA ,sls vH;FkhZ dks dkykUrj esa dkamUlfyhax@ik=rk
tkap@lk{kkRdkj ds nkSjku vik= fd;s tkus ij mUgsa vkxkeh ,d
o”kZ dh vof/k ds fy, HkrhZ ijh{kkvksa ls fooftZr ¼Debar½ fd;k
tk,xkA
2.1. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court
towards the following columns in the advertisement, which reads
as follows:-
vkosnu vof/k fnukad 14-03-2024 ls fnukad 12-04-2024 jkf= 12-00 cts
vkosnu izfdz;k 1. mDr in gsrq vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= Hkjus ls iwoZ
loZizFke vH;FkhZ vk;ksx dh osclkbZV
https://rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in ij miyC/k vkWuykbZu
vkosnu i= Hkjus ds lEcU/k esa fn;s x;s fn’kk&funsZ’kksa –
(Instructions for Applicants) vxzsth esa foLr`r
foKkiu ,oa lEcaf/kr lsok fu;e dk v/;;u vko’;d :i
ls dj ysosaA rnqijkUr gh vH;FkhZ vkWuykbZu vkosnu djsaA
vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij myyC/k vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, fn’kk &
funsZ’k (Instructions for Applicants) vxzsth esa foKkiu
dk gh Hkkx@ fgLlk ekuk tk;sxkA(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (6 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]2.2. Learned counsel has further taken this Court to the
corrigendum dated 19.11.2024 issued by the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission, Ajmer, the English translation of which reads
as under:
“Press-note
Date: 19.11.2024Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
The Commission proposes to conduct the Assistant
Prosecution Officer Home Department (Prosecution)
Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2024 on
19.01.2025.
As per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement
issued for the said examination, an opportunity is being
provided to make online corrections in the name, photo,
father’s name, date of birth and gender of the candidate
from 20.11.2024 to 28.11.2024. Candidates seeking
correction can make online corrections in the application
form of the concerned examination by depositing a fee of
Rs. 500/ through e-mitra/online banking and by logging
in through the Apply Online Link available on the
Commission’s online portal http://rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in or
by logging in from the SSO Portal and selecting the
Recruitment Portal available in Citizen Apps (G2C).
Use only the option of online correction for the said exam.
Offline corrections will not be accepted. The above
mentioned online correction opportunity is only a
convenience for the benefit of the candidates. Corrections
will be valid only in accordance with the eligibility
conditions mentioned in the advertisement issued for the
exam. The conditions of the advertisement will remain as
before. In case of any technical difficulty regarding the
above correction, you can contact
[email protected] by e-mail or on
phone no. 9352323625 and 7340557555.
Also, candidates who have applied online despite not
possessing the educational qualification/experience as per
the advertisement, action can be taken against such
candidates under Section 217 of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita and to debar them from the upcoming
recruitment examination of the Commission. Therefore,
such candidates can also withdraw their online application
form by logging on to the SSO Portal from 20.11.2024 to
26.11.2024, selecting the Recruitment Portal and clicking(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (7 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]on the Withdraw Button available in front of the
concerned examination under My Recruitment Section.”
2.3. Learned counsel has also taken this Court to Rule 12 of the
Rules of 1978, which is reproduced as under:-
“12. Academic qualifications and experience. – A
candidate for direct recruitment to the posts
enumerated in the schedule shall in addition to
such experience as is required possess.
(i). The qualifications given in column 4 of the schedules.
(ii). Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri
script and any one of the Rajasthan dialects.”
2.4. Learned counsel thereafter submits that since the
advertisement itself prescribed for a last date therefore, the
relaxation beyond the last date was not permissible and has
wrongly been granted by the learned Single Bench. He submits
that last the date was 12.04.2024 whereas all other qualifications
have been obtained around August, 2024.
2.5. Learned counsel has referred to the judgments rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakshi Arha Vs. The Rajasthan High
Court & Ors.: 2025 SC 463 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs.
Union of India (UOI) & Ors.: 2007(4) SCC 54. Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgments are reproduced as under:-
Sakshi Arha Vs. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
“27. On the subject of absence of last date to showcase
their eligibility by a candidate apropos their equivalent
claim, this Court clarified the correct position of law in its
decision in Bhupinderpal Singh and Others v. State of
Punjab and Others, where, while upholding the view taken
by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, held that the(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (8 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]eligibility criteria for candidates aspiring (2000) 5 SCC 262
public employment shall be determined pertaining to the
cut-off date as outlined in the applicable rules of their
respective service. In case the rules are silent, the decisive
date is, ideally, indicated in the advertisement for
recruitment. However, in case of absence of specifications
in both context, the eligibility is to be adjudged in lieu of
the last date of submission of applications before the
concerned authority or institute. This, thereby, ensures a
clear temporal reference point for evaluating qualifications
of a candidate as per the concerned advertisement.
28. This derivation of the position of law was from the
decision of this Court in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v.
University of Rajasthan and Others wherein the Bench
explicitly observed that the proposition of assessing a
candidate’s qualification with reference to the date of
selection, as opposed to the last date of applications is
untenable and must be unequivocally dismissed. The
indeterminate nature of the date of selection renders it
impracticable for applicants to ascertain whether they meet
the prescribed qualifications, particularly if such
qualifications are yet to be attained. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced as follows:
“10. The contention that the required qualifications
of the candidates should be examined with reference
to the date of selection and not with reference to the
last date for making applications has only to be
stated to be rejected. The date of selection is
invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of
such date the candidates who apply for the posts
would be unable to state whether they are qualified
for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to
acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement
mentions a fixed date with reference to which the
qualifications are to be judged, whether the said
date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be
possible for the candidates who do not possess the
requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (9 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the
date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz.,
even those candidates who do not have the
qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire
them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the
posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a
still worse consequence may follow, in that it may
leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to
entertain some applicants and reject others,
arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date
indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting
applications with reference to which the requisite
qualifications should be judged, the only certain date
for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last
date for making the applications. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the
Selection Committee in the present case, as argued
by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the
requisite qualifications as on the date of selection
rather than on the last date of preferring
applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on
this ground itself the selections in question are liable
to be quashed. Reference in this connection may
also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in
A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad v.
B. Sarat Chandra [(1990) 2 SCC 669 : 1990
SCC (L&S) 377 : (1990) 4 SLR 235 : (1990) 13
ATC 708] and District Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School
Society, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari
Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 :
(1990) 4 SLR 237 : (1990) 14 ATC 766].”
29. This is now well-accepted, licit with clarification, also
reiterated in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), and was
accepted as recently as in the decision of this Court in Divya
v. Union of India and Others, while dealing with
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (10 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
crystallisation of right of EWS through issuance of Income
and Asset Certificate, as issued by the competent authority.
34. Moreover, the decisions of this Court have cleared the
air of any doubt that the claim made by a candidate while
filling his or her application as per the concerned
advertisement are to hold good as on the date of his or her
application or as per the last date of submission of
applications prescribed by the concerned advertisement.
36. The Subsequent Notice, which was issued by the
Rajasthan High Court on 04.08.2022, cannot be said to be
arbitrary or without any basis. It specified that the
certificate belonging to the concerned reserved category
should have been issued prior or upto 31.08.2021 i.e. the
last date of receipt of the application in pursuance to the
Advertisement. This was because the Advertisement
required a candidate to possess eligibility upto the cut-off
date. As regards the specifications regarding a certificate
issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020 along with the
affidavit is concerned, this was based on the Government
Circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 (reproduced
above) which clarified that the certificate issued will be valid
for one year extendable by three years with affidavit. Thus,
the Subsequent Notice issued was in consonance with law
and as per the Advertisement, applicable Rules, instructions
and circulars issued by the competent authority. The plea of
the appellants is unsustainable and deserves to be rejected.
No relaxation can be granted in the given facts and
circumstances of the case nor can it be claimed as a matter
of right in the absence of any such discretionary clause in
the Advertisement/Rules/Instructions.”
Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.
“6. The question as to what should be the cut-off date in
absence of any date specified in this behalf either in the
advertisement or in the reference is no longer res integra.
It would be last date for filing application as would appear
from the discussions made hereinafter. The question came
up for consideration, inter alia, before a 3-Judge Bench of
this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another etc. v.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (11 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
Chander Shekher and Another etc. [(1993) Supp. (2) SCC
611], wherein Thommen, J. speaking for himself and
Ramaswami, J. opined :
“13. It is true Rule 37 is in terms applicable only to
Public Service Commission candidates and due
notice of provisional entertainment of their
application, subject to their passing examination
before the date of interview, is a requirement
peculiar to Rule 37 and is not applicable to the
present case.
14. If the principle of Rule 37 is by analogy
applicable, the fact that notice of provisional
entertainment of applications, subject to passing of
the examination before the date of interview, is a
requirement in the interests of candidates who fell
within that category. The appellants are by analogy
persons of that category, but they have no
complaint on any such ground.
15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the
examination and were fully qualified for being
selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing
the appellants to sit for the interview and by their
selection on the basis of their comparative merits,
the recruiting authority was able to get the best
talents available. It was certainly in the public
interest that the interview was made as broad based
as was possible on the basis of qualification. The
reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus
based on sound principle with reference to
comparatively superior merits. It was in the public
interest that better candidates who were fully
qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected,
notwithstanding that the results of the examination
in which they had appeared had been delayed for no
fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on
the dates of the interview and taking into account
the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (12 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that
the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of
the Division Bench was incorrect and the view
expressed by the learned Single Judge was, on the
facts of this case, the correct view. Accordingly, we
set aside the impugned judgment of the Division
Bench and restore that of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, we uphold the results announced by
the recruiting authority. The appeal is allowed in the
above terms. However, we make no order as to
costs.”
Sahai, J., however, gave a dissenting note, stating :
“The notification, therefore, provided not, only, the
conditions which a candidate was required to possess
when applying for the post mentioned in the
notification but he was also required to support it
with authenticated certificate and if he failed to do so
then the application was not liable to be entertained.
In legal terminology where something is required to
be done and the consequences of failure to do so are
also provided then it is known as mandatory. The
mandatory character of possessing the requirements
as provided in the first part of the notification stands
further strengthened from the third and last part of
the notification which prohibited the candidates from
applying if they did not possess the requisite
qualifications. In view of these clear and specific
conditions laid down in the advertisement those
candidates who were not possessed of the B.E.
qualifications were not eligible for applying nor their
applications were liable to be entertained nor could
they be called for interview. Eligibility for the post
mentioned in the notification depended on possessing
the qualification noted against each post. The
expression, shall be possessed of such qualifications,
is indicative of both the mandatory character of the
requirement and its operation in praesenti. That is a
candidate must not only have been qualified but he(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (13 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]should have been possessed of it on the date the
application was made. The construction suggested by
the learned counsel for the appellant that the
relevant date for purposes of eligibility was the date
of interview and not the date of application or July
15, 1982 the last date for submission of forms is not
made out from the language of the notification.
Acceptance of such construction would result in
altering the first part of the advertisement
prescribing eligibility on the date of applying for the
post as being extended to the date of interview. If it
is read in the manner suggested then the
requirement that incomplete applications and those
not accompanied by the requisite certificates shall
not be entertained, shall become meaningless.
Purpose of filing certificate along with application was
to prove that the conditions required were satisfied.
Non-filing of any of the certificates could have
resulted in not entertaining the application as the
requirements as specified would have been presumed
to be non-existent. Fulfilment of conditions was
mandatory and its proof could be directory. The
former could not be waived or deferred whereas the
defect in latter could be cured even subsequently.
That is proof could be furnished till date of interview
but not the eligibility to apply for the post. Any other
construction would further be contrary to the last
part of the notification.”
11. Possession of requisite educational qualification is
mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an
uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be
flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off
date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the
candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence
of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the
advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court
would be the last date for filing the application.”
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (14 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
2.6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the
followings judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court:
(i). Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) Vs. University of
Rajsthan & Ors: 1993 AIR (SCW) 1488, relevant portion of which
reads as follows:-
“6.However, for the reasons which follow, we are not
inclined to set aside the selections in spite of the said
illegality. The selected candidates have been working in the
respective posts since February 1985. We are now in
January 1993. Almost eight years have elapsed. There is
also no record before us to show as to how the Selection
Committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits
of the candidates and to relax the minimum qualifications
in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary powers
vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the
considerations which weighed with the Committee in
relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid, ‘it would
result in injustice to those who have been selected. We,
however, feel it necessary to emphasise and bring to the
notice of the University that the illegal practices in the
selection of candidates which have come to light and which
seem to be followed usually at its end must stop forthwith.
it is for this purpose that we lay down the following
guidelines for the future selection process:
A. The University must note that the qualifications it
advertises for the posts should not be at variance with
those prescribed by its ordinance/Statutes.
B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last
date for making applications for the posts in question, or
on the date to be specifically mentioned in the
advertisement/notification for the purpose. The
qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said
date should not be taken into consideration, as that would
be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be
remembered that when the advertisement/notification(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (15 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]represents that the candidates must have the qualifications
in ques-
tion, with reference to the last date for making the
applications or with reference to the specific date
mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such
qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they
are likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire
them after the said date. In the circumstances, many who
would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even
be better then those who apply, can have a legitimate
grievance since they are left out of consideration.
C. When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes
the minimum required qualifications, unless it is specifically
stated in the advertisement/notification both that the
qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on
which they will be relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal.
D. The University/Selection Committee must mention in its
proceedings of selection the reasons for making
relaxations, if any, in respect of each of the candidates in
whose favour relaxation is made.
E. The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee
should be preserved for a sufficiently long time, and if the
selection process is challenged until the challenge is finally
disposed of. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if
the minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken that they are
not available.”
(ii). Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
and Anr.: 2011(9) SCC 438, relevant portion of which reads as
under:-
“15. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge decided the
writ petitions without even adverting to Rule 11, the
relevant entries of the Schedule and paragraph 13 of the
advertisement and issued direction which amounted to
amendment of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution. This was clearly impermissible. Therefore, the
Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (16 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]direction given by the learned Single Judge, which
facilitated appointment of the petitioners despite the fact
that they were not eligible to be considered for selection.”
(iii). Bhupinderpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.:
2000(5) SCC 262, relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced as
under:-
“Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok
Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar & Anr. JT 1997 (4) SC
99; A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra &
Ors. 1990 (4) SLR 235; The Distt. Collector and Chairman,
Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society)
Vizianagaram and Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 (4)
SLR 237; Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan
& Ors. JT 1993 (1) SC 220; Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India &
Ors. 1993 (2) SCC 429; and U.P. Public Service Commission,
U.P., Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Alpana JT 1994 (1) SC 94, the
High Court has held (i) that the cut off date by reference to
which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the
candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed
by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date
appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed
for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications;
ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility
criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date
appointed by which the applications have to be received by
the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is
supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore
well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However,
there are certain special features of this case which need to
be taken care of and justice done by invoking the jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so
as to advance the cause of justice.
In view of several decisions of this Court relied on by the
High Court and referred to herein above, it was expected of
the State Government notifying the vacancies to have clearly
laid down and stated the cut off date by reference to which
the applicants were required to satisfy their eligibility. This
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (17 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
was not done. It was pointed out on behalf of the several
appellants/petitioners before this Court that the practice
prevalent in Punjab has been to determine the eligibility by
reference to the date of interview and there are innumerable
cases wherein such candidates have been seeking
employment as were not eligible on the date of making the
applications or the last date appointed for receipt of the
applications but were in the process of acquiring eligibility
qualifications and did acquire the same by the time they were
called for and appeared at the interview. Several such
persons have been appointed but no one has challenged their
appointments and they have continued to be in public
employment. Such a loose practice, though prevalent, cannot
be allowed to be continued and must be treated to have been
put to an end. The reason is apparent. The applications made
by such candidates as were not qualified but were in the
process of acquiring eligibility qualifications would be difficult
to be scrutinised and subjected to the process of approval or
elimination and would only result in creating confusion and
uncertainty. Many would be such applicants who would be
called to face interview but shall have to be returned blank if
they failed to acquire requisite eligibility qualifications by the
time of interview. In our opinion the authorities of the State
should be tied down to the principles governing the cut off
date for testing the eligibility qualifications on the principles
deducible from decided cases of this Court and stated herein
above which have now to be treated as the settled service
jurisprudence.”
(iv). U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad & Anr.
Vs. Alpana: 1994 AIR (SC) 423, relevant paragraphs of which
reads as under:-
“3. As already pointed out, on a plain reading of the
advertisement pursuant to which she had made the
application, it is obvious that she was required to possess
the degree of Bachelor of Laws on the last date fixed for
receipt of applications which was August 20, 1988. This
becomes clear from the requirement of production of an
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (18 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
attested copy of the law degree examination certificate and
mark sheet thereof. A candidate who had not passed the
law degree examination before August 20, 1988 would
obviously not be in a position to comply with this
requirement. Admittedly, she did not comply with this
requirement and had stated in her application that on the
last date fixed for receipt of the applications, i.e. August
20, 1988, she did not possess the degree of Bachelor of
Laws, but that she had appeared at such examination and
was awaiting the result. The result was declared sometime
in October 1988. She was also permitted to appear at the
written test held by the Public Service Commission but as
she did not receive any intimation in regard to the oral test
she moved the High Court by way of writ petition and
obtained an interim order directing the Public Service
Commission to interview her at the interviews to be held
on 15th and 16th of July 1991. In obedience to that order
the Public Service Commission interviewed her, but kept
her result in abeyance, which was declared after the writ
petition was finally disposed of by the impugned order of
March 17, 1993. By the final order the High Court not only
directed the Public Service Commission to declare the
result but further directed that her name should be
forwarded to the Government for appointment and the
Government should, if necessary, create a supernumerary
post and appoint her thereon. In taking this view, the High
Court placed reliance on two of its earlier judgments as
well as the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma
v. Chander Shekher dated December 18, 1992. Therefore,
in order to examine the correctness or otherwise of the
conclusion reached by the High Court we deem it
necessary to briefly refer to this Court’s decision in the
case of Ashok Kumar Sharma.
6. In the facts of the present case we fail to appreciate how
the ratio of the said decision of this Court can be attracted.
The facts of this case reveal that the respondent was not
qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of
applications was August 20, 1988. No rule or practice is
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (19 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of
her application. The Public Service Commission was,
therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview. The
High Court in Writ Petition No. 1898 of 1991 mandated the
Public Service Commission to interview her but directed to
withhold the result until further orders. In obedience to the
directive of the High Court the Public Service Commission
interviewed her but her result was kept in abeyance.
Thereafter, the High Court while disposing of the matter
finally directed the Public Service Commission to declare
her result and, if successful, to forward her name for
appointment. The High Court even went to the length of
ordering the creation of a supernumerary post to
accommodate her. This approach of the High Court cannot
be supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it
be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was
no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal
of the Public Service Commission to interview her in the
absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it
difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High
Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many
candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not
have applied as the result of the examination was not
declared before the last date for receipt of applications. If
once such an approach is recognised there would be
several applications received from such candidates not
eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable
work of the selecting authorities but would also increase
the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till
the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable
administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies
unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it
difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in
this appeal.”
3. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that
the controversy zeroes down to the paragraph 1 of the application
process in the advertisement, which laid down that instructions for
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (20 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
the applicants available on website shall form a part of the
advertisement. The relevant portion of the website instructions
reads as follows:-
” 2- in dh vgZrk] ifjoh{kk] osrueku ,oa fu;qfDr ds fy, v;ksX;rk lEcaf/k
lkekU; fn’kk&funsZ’k %& ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk o vuqHko %& vk;ksx }kjk tkjh
foKkiu esa vafdr ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk o vuqHko foKkiu esa fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd
vH;FkhZ }kjk vftZr gksuk pkfg,A_ ijUrq ;g fd ikB;dze ds vafre o”kZ dh ijh{kk] tks lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy,
fu;eksa ;k vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr in ds fy, visf{kr ‘kS{kf.kd
vgZrk gS] esa lfEefyr gqvk ;k lfEefyr gks jgk gS] okyk O;fDr in ds
fy, vkosnu djus gsrq ik= gksxk]”
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that for
submitting the online applications, portal of the RPSC was open
and there was an option for the candidates who have been
pursuing their LLB final year examination, and that is why online
form of the respondent-candidates were accepted.
3.2. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
following judgments:-
(i). The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. G. Hemalathaa
& Anr. passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Apeal No.6669
of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.14093 of 2019).
(ii). Union of India Vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat passed by
learned Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12323 of 2020, decided on 19.08.2021.
(iii). Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Anr. Passed by a learned Single Bench of this
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13295/2024, decided on
11.09.2024.
(iv). Dayaram Vs. R.P.S.C. Ajmer passed by learned
Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.20172/2012 and other connected matters,
decided on 15.07.2014.
(v). Kuldeep Jaiman Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
passed by learned Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (21 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13115 of 2021 and other
connected matters, decided on 14.02.2024.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
documents presented, and considered the precedents cited at the
Bar.
5. This Court observes that the controversy arising in the
instant appeal essentially pertains to the eligibility of candidates
who had appeared in the final year of LL.B examination in 2024
but obtained their degrees subsequent to the last date of
application, i.e., 12.04.2024.
6. This Court further observes that while the appellant-RPSC
has relied on the settled principle that eligibility must be
determined with reference to the last date of submission of
applications, the respondents have placed reliance upon the
corrigendum dated 19.11.2024 as well as the online instructions
uploaded on the Commission’s portal, which specifically permitted
candidates “appearing” in the final year to apply.
7. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties,
finds that the present controversy has a very narrow compass.
The judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakshi Arha
(supra) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) are applicable only
in cases where there is no specification or clarification regarding
the last date for filing the qualification details. The qualification
requirement is set out in Rule 12 of the Rules of 1978, which has
already been reproduced above. In the present case, the
advertisement did specify the last date, but at the same time, the
website instructions clearly outlined the eligibility criteria for
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (22 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
candidates, specifically the requirement of an LL.B degree. It is
also not disputed by the RPSC that the appearing candidates were
those who could not complete their degree in the very year they
appeared for the examination.
8. At this juncture it is pertinent to highlight that the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Civil Appeal
No. 2634 of 2013, decided on 07.11.2024), held that while
administrative instructions may supplement statutory rules where
they are silent, no departure from or dilution of the procedure
prescribed in the extant rules is permissible once the recruitment
process has commenced. However, in the present case, it cannot
be said that there was any midstream change of the “rules of the
game”. On the contrary, the corrigendum dated 19.11.2024 and
the online instructions explicitly formed part of the original
advertisement itself, thereby clarifying at the outset that
“appearing” candidates would be treated as eligible. The ratio of
Tej Prakash Pathak(supra) thus fortifies the view that where
the rules are supplemented by contemporaneous instructions
issued before commencement of the process, such stipulations
must be treated as binding and integral to the advertisement.
9. The learned Single Judge has duly considered all the relevant
judgments as well as the factual situation emerging in the present
case. This Court is of the firm opinion that once there is a clear
stipulation on the official website of the RPSC that candidates
“appearing” in a particular year, i.e. 2024, would be treated as
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35948-DB] (23 of 23) [SAW-169/2025]
eligible, and it is further not in dispute that all such candidates
completed their LL.B in the same year 2024, there remains no
justification for denying them eligibility within the stipulated time.
It is further observed that the perspective of the official website of
the RPSC giving details of the examination could have been
relevant for non consideration only in a situation where such
stipulation ran into direct contravention with the statutory rules.
In the present case, however, there is no such direct
contravention. The judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon
by the appellants only lay down guidelines in situations where the
advertisement is silent or ambiguous regarding the cut-off date for
qualifications. In the present case, however, the advertisement
itself categorically states that the website instructions shall
constitute an integral part of the advertisement, and once so
incorporated, the advertisement itself must be deemed to have
attracted the proviso regarding eligibility of “appearing”
candidates. Therefore, this Court finds no cause for interference in
the impugned order.
10. Consequently, the special appeals are dismissed.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
46-53-nirmala/-
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:22:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link