[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 747/2023
Monika D/o Sh. Surendra Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near
Temple, Village Niwai, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education
Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer
4. The Controller Of Examination, University Of Kota, Kota.
----Respondents
Connected with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 748/2023 Rubiya Parveen D/o Sh. Zakir Hussain, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Jama Masjid Ke Pass, Jahazpur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
4. The Controller Of Examination, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 749/2023 Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Shish Pal Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gram Pipli, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
4. The Controller Of Examination, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota.
5. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo- Jhariya, Churu, Rajasthan (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:33:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 750/2023 Sarwan Ram S/o Shri Puna Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dukiyon Ki Dhani, Vpo Firod, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
4. The Controller Of Examination, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 751/2023 Hemlata Jaju D/o Shri Vishnu Narayan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Kurada, Tehsil Parbhatsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
4. The Controller Of Examination, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 752/2023 Omprakash Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Palthana, Tehsil Dhod, Palthana, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
4. The Controller Of Examination, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota.
----Respondents (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:33:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-747/2023] D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 753/2023 Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Singh Jatav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Laddu Khawas Ki Bagichi, Nai Basti, Po Delhi Gate, Alwar, Rajasthan
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
4. The Controller Of Examination, Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Supriya Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y. C. Sharma in SAW No. 748/2023, 750/2023 and 752/2023 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 05/10/2023 ORAL
1. In the present bunch of appeals, the scope of the controversy involved is identical. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the appeals are being taken up for final disposal jointly. For procedural efficacy, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 747/2023 titled as Monika vs. State of Rajasthan, is being taken up as the lead file.
2. By way of the instant appeal, a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 23.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant, was dismissed.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:33:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]
3. In order to shed light on the controversy involved, the factual narrative of the instant appeal is briefly taken note of herein-under:
3.1 On 28.04.2022, the respondent no.3-RPSC issued an advertisement whereby applications for recruitment on the post of Lecturer-School Education were invited. 3.2 In the said advertisement, a stipulation was incorporated which enabled students in their final year of pursuing the requisite qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement, to apply for the said recruitment, subject to producing/possessing the said requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e. the date of holding the written competitive examination. 3.3 However, despite appearing in the final university examinations on the date so fixed, on account of delay/negligence in declaring the result of the requisite qualification on part of the respondent no.4-University, the appellant failed to possess/produce the requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e. date on which the written examination was conducted by the respondent no.3-RPSC.
3.4 As a result, the appellant was deemed ineligible. 3.5 Thereafter, being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9585/2023. However, the same came to be dismissed by way of the order impugned dated 23.08.2023.
4. In this background, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order impugned is passed in contravention of the settled position of law and without taking the material aspects into consideration. Therefore, the same deserves to be quashed (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:33:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-747/2023] and set aside. To elaborate on the said claim, it was averred that despite possessing the requisite qualification as on date, the appellant, on account of delay and negligence on part of the respondent-university, could not produce the requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e. the date of holding the written competitive examination. As a result, the appellant was deemed ineligible. Learned counsel argued that as no fault qua the delay/negligence on part of the respondent-university where the appellant was pursuing her M.A. English Course, is attributable to the appellant, the delay/negligence caused by a third-party in declaring the result of the examination, should not barge on the right of the appellant for consideration on recruitment on the concerned post so advertised. Therefore, relying upon the submissions made herein-above, it was conclusively submitted that stipulations qua eligibility are procedural requirements and the delay in declaration of the result was not attributable to the appellant. Reliance was also placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Kumari Laxmi Saroj vs. State of U.P. reported in 2022 17 SCR 696.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that order impugned dated 23.08.2023 is a well- reasoned speaking order wherein after due consideration of material aspects, the learned Single Judge has arrived at a logical conclusion. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference with the order impugned is warranted.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:33:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]
6. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the appeal and perused the judgment cited at Bar.
7. Concisely noted, the issue under consideration pertains to the appellant not possessing the requisite educational qualification for the post of Lecturer-School Education up to the cut-off date, as fixed by the respondent no.3-RPSC i.e. the date of holding the written competitive examination.
8. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the present appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant statutory provision, in conformity with which, the advertisement dated 28.04.2022 was issued by the respondent no.3-RPSC. Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021 is reproduced herein-under:-
"kS{kf.kd vgZrk lac/a kh izko/kku%& ßiB dh visf{kr "kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre o o'kZ esa lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk ls iwoZ "kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxkAÞ
9. As per Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021, a person who is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as advertised, is also eligible to fill the form for recruitment, provided that on the cut-off date, which is prescribed as the date on which the written examination is conducted, the incumbent shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, though the appellant had appeared in the final year examination of M.A. English, which constituted the requisite educational qualification, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:33:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-747/2023] however, the appellant admittedly did not possess the requisite educational qualification on the cut-off date, albeit due to no fault attributable to her. In this regard, it is noted that the appellant appeared in the final year examinations on 14.07.2022 to 16.07.2022, whereas, the examination conducted by the respondent-RPSC was on 11.10.2022 and 14.10.2022, and the result of the final year examination was declared on 10.11.2022 i.e. pursuant to the cut-off date. Having said so, this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot issue any directions which are dehors the statutory rules, which provide for possession/submission of proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification on the cut-off date i.e. date of written examination. Therefore, the argument of the appellant qua the delay and/or negligence on part of a third-party precluding the appellant from acquiring the educational qualification before the cut-off date, gets negated by the strict and self-explanatory statutory rules framed in connection with the advertisement so issued.
11. The reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Laxmi Saroj (Supra) by the appellant is misplaced and distinguishable, the same having been delivered in a distinguishable nature of facts, whereas in the present case, the statutory rules bind the compliance of the requisites before the cut-off date.
12. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra reported in (2017) 11 SCC 521, while dealing with an identical controversy, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:33:40 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-747/2023] "The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possesses the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post."
13. Therefore, considering the fact that the advertisement dated 28.04.2022 was issued in conformity with Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021; that it is an admitted position that the appellant did not possess the requisite educational qualification on or before the cut-off date, as prescribed in consonance with Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021; that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot issue any directions which are dehors the statutory rules, which provide for possession/submission of proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification on the cut-off date i.e. date of written examination and relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Vijay Kumar Mishra (Supra), this Court is inclined to dismiss the present appeal.
14. As a result, the instant appeals are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
15. A copy of the order be placed in each of the file.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ Pooja /9-15 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:33:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)