Harshit Vaishnav vs The Honorable High Court Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1100 Raj

                                       (1 of 7)                   [CWP-17925/2021]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                 DB. Civil Writ Petition No.17925/2021

Harshit Vaishnav S/o Shri Rakesh Vaishnav, aged about 19
years, R/o Kissan Hostel Ke Pass, Merta City, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.   The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur through the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court,
Principal Seat, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
2. The Registrar (Exam), Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat
Jodhpur
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Dr. Nupur Bhati



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                     Order

Date of pronouncement : 24/01/2022

Order reserved on : 20/12/2021

BY THE COURT : PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.

The respondents invited applications for direct

recruitment for posts of Stenographer Grade-III for the District

Courts and the District Legal Services Authorities (including

Permanent Lok Adalats) vide advertisement dated 18.01.2020.

The petitioner claiming to be qualified in all aspects, submitted his

online application in the OBC (NCL) category. One of the

mandatory eligibility criteria for selection was that the applicant

must have acquired the computer efficiency certificate as per

clause 5 (3) of the advertisement. The petitioner claims that at

the time when the advertisement was issued, he was undergoing

computer course offered by the RSCIT. The result was declared on

(2 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021]

30.10.2021 and the provisional completion certificate was issued

to the petitioner on 08.11.2021. The petitioner appeared in the

shorthand and the computer tests held by the respondents on

04.04.2021, and claims to have performed well. The result of the

shorthand and the computer test was declared on 30.06.2021 and

after interviews, final result was declared on 31.07.2021.

However, subsequently, a notice dated 28.10.2021 was issued and

a revised result was issued, whereafter candidates found

provisionally qualified were called for fresh interviews. The

petitioner was also called for the interview in pursuance of the

said notice by call letter dated 30.10.2021 and he was asked to

bring all his original documents for verification. However, when

the petitioner appeared for the document verification/interview, he

was not having the original RSCIT certificate and thus, he

submitted a provisional certificate alongwith an affidavit.

Nonetheless, the respondents have issued a revised final result

vide notice dated 15.12.2021, wherein candidature of five

candidates including the petitioner was rejected on account of not

possessing the requisite computer education

qualification/certificate on the last date of submission of online

application forms. The petitioner is aggrieved of the notice dated

15.12.2021 (Annex.8) referred to supra and hence, he has

approached this court by way of this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the impugned action.

Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the petitioner

had submitted the provisional certificate issued by the RSCIT on

(3 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021]

the date of document verification and thus, his candidature ought

not to have been rejected by the respondents in the manner

stated above. She urged that the impugned action is per se

arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner having qualified the shorthand

and type test and fulfilling the required eligibility criteria is entitled

to be appointed as Stenographer pursuant to the recruitment

notification dated 18.01.2020 and hence, the impugned notice, to

the extent that it ousts the petitioner from the selection process in

question, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. In support of her

contentions, Dr. Bhati relies upon this court's judgment in the case

of Hukma Ram Bishnoi Vs. The State of Rajasthan (D.B.

Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.317/2016 decided on

15.07.2016) and urges that the impugned notice be struck down

and the respondents be directed to offer appointment to the

petitioner as per his merit.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

documents filed on record with the writ petition.

The selection process in question was undertaken under

the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules,

1986. The academic qualifications for the post of Stenographer

Grade-III are laid down in Rule 10 (1)(d) of the Rules of 1986, as

per which, a candidate for recruitment to the post of Stenographer

Grade-III must have passed :

"O" or Higher Level Certificate Course conducted by DOEACC under control of the Department of Electronics, Government of India;

or

(4 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021]

Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (COPA)/Data Preparation & Computer Software (DPCS) certificate organized under National/State council of Vocational Training Scheme;

or

Diploma in Computer Science/ Computer Application from any university established by Law in India or from an institution recognized by the Government;

or

Diploma in Computer Science & Engineering from a Polytechnic Institution recognized by the Government;

or

Rajasthan State Certificate Course in Information Technology (RSCIT) Conducted by Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University, Kota under control of Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited;

or

Senior Secondary School Examination with Computer Science as an optional subject;

or

Any equivalent or higher qualification.

Admittedly, the petitioner was not having the said

qualification on the date of notification or even on the last date of

submission of the application forms.

On going through the judgment in the case of Hukma

Ram Bishnoi (supra) relied upon by Dr. Bhati, it is noticeable

that there was a clear stipulation in the recruitment advertisement

that those who were undergoing the course were also eligible to

appear, but would have to produce certificate for having passed

the course at the time of Physical Efficiency Test. However, in the

case at hand, the advertisement (Annex.1) clearly stipulated at

clause No.(5) that a candidate "must have passed" any of the

courses referred to supra. This condition of the advertisement is

(5 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021]

in tune with Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules of 1986 and hence, it

cannot be termed to be illegal or arbitrary by any stretch of

imagination. Apparently, thus, the judgment in the case of

Hukma Ram Bishnoi (supra) is distinguishable on facts.

Our view finds strength from the judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs Union

of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54] and Alka Ojha Vs Rajasthan

Public Service Commission [(2011) 9 SCC 438]. In the case

of Ashok Kumar Sonkar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a

similar controversy and held as below :-

13. The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that in absence of any cutoff date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing of an application shall be considered as such.

14. Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cutoff date. He was, therefore, not eligible therefor.

15. In Bhupinderpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others [(2000) 5 SCC 262], this Court moreover disapproved the prevailing practice in the State of Punjab to determine the eligibility with reference to the date of interview, inter alia, stating:

"13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi v.

University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana 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

(6 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021]

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 be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice."

[See Jasbir Rani and Others v. State of Punjab & Another [JT 2001 (9) SC 351 : (2002) 1 SCC 124].

16. Yet again in Shankar K. Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(2003) 9 SCC 519], this Court held that the following principles could be culled out from the aforementioned decisions:

"(1) 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. (2) If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications.

(3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority."

17. In M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others [(2003) 7 SCC 517], a contention was made that Ashok Kumar-II (supra) was to operative prospectively or not. The said contention was rejected, stating:

"It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective overruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs. That being the position, the High Court was in error by holding that the judgment which operated on the date of selection was operative and not the review judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma case No. II. All the more so when the subsequent judgment is by way of review of

(7 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021]

the first judgment in which case there are nojudgments at all and the subsequent judgment rendered on review petitions is the one and only judgment rendered, effectively and for all purposes, the earlier decision having been erased by countenancing the review applications. The impugned judgments of the High Court are, therefore, set aside."

18. 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."

Since the petitioner was admittedly, not possessed of

the requisite computer qualification certificate on the date of

issuance of the recruitment notification or even on the last date

for submission of the application forms, manifestly, he was not

qualified/eligible to apply for the posts advertised by the

respondents. Thus, we find no merit in the contention of the

petitioner that he has wrongly been denied the opportunity of

selection in the questioned recruitment process.

As a consequence, the writ petition fails and is

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                          (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)