Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramesh Chand Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 2022

Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 227/2021

Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Gokulpura, Jhanpda, Lassot, Dist. Dausa (Raj.) At Present Residing At Chamunda Hostel Sardarpura, District- Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 212/2021 Ram Kishore Tada S/o Shri Mangu Ram Tada, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Near Rajat Hospital Jodhpur , Choki Merta City Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Of Rajasthan Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG, through VC Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Judgment

18/01/2022

These two special appeals have been preferred by the

original writ petitioners for assailing the orders dated 17.02.2021

passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

Nos.1708/2021 and 2957/2021 respectively, whereby the writ

(2 of 7) [SAW-227/2021]

petitions preferred by the petitioners were dismissed. The

petitioners approached this court by way of the above two writ

petitions for assailing the rejection of their candidature by the

respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in the

recruitment conducted for the post of School Lecturers in various

subjects vide notification dated 29.03.2018. As per the said

advertisement, the educational qualification required for selection

was second class post graduate degree in the concerned subject

and having minimum 48% marks with Shiksha Shastri/B.Ed. As

per the advertisement, the aspirants, who had appeared or were

appearing in the last year of the qualifying examination would be

entitled for applying in the selection process, but they would have

to submit proof of having acquired the qualification by the last

date for holding of the written examinations. The process of

recruitment somehow remained in abeyance. A corrigendum

dated 06.01.2020 was issued by the Commission inviting fresh

applications with a condition that the candidates, who had already

filed their applications need not apply again.

In this corrigendum, reservation was provided for EWS

category. The petitioners filed their applications in pursuance of

this corrigendum. The petitioner Ramesh Chand Meena received

the result and marksheet of Acharya (Grammer) degree on

24.12.2020 and the petitioner Ram Kishore Tada received the

result and marksheet of B.Ed. degree on 31.12.2020. Thus, both

the petitioner acquired the requisite qualification well after the

date of conducting the written examination by the RPSC. Both the

petitioners appeared in the competitive examination and were

called for document verification. The Commission rejected the

candidature of the petitioners vide communications dated

(3 of 7) [SAW-227/2021]

22.01.2021 and 19.01.2021 respectively assigning the reason that

the petitioners had not acquired the qualifying degrees as on the

date of the writen examination, i.e. 04.08.2020 and hence, they

were not entitled for selection. Thereupon the petitioners

challenged the rejection of their candidature by filing the writ

petitions, which have been dismissed as above vide orders dated

17.02.2020, which are assailed in this appeal.

Mr. O.P. Sangwa, learned counsel representing the

appellants urged that as per the condition of the advertisement,

the aspirants, who had appeared or were to appear in the

qualifying examination were entitled to apply for the posts. Both

the appellant-petitioners had completed the first year of qualifying

course and were appearing in the final year/second year and as

such, they were eligible to apply in the said recruitment process.

When the petitioners appeared for document verification, they

were holding the requisite qualification and hence, their

candidature could not have been rejected. He, thus, implored the

court to set aside the impugned orders and direct consideration of

the petitioners for the post of School Lecturers.

Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, learned counsel representing the

respondent RPSC opposed the prayer so made, pointing out the

condition No.8 of the corrigendum notice dated 06.01.2020,

stipulates that despite the extension of date for submission of the

forms, the requirements of educational qualification and the other

conditions of the recruitment would remain the same. He urged

that as per this corrigendum, all the aspiring candidates were

required to be holding the qualifying degree as on the date of

written examination, which was conducted on 04.08.2020.

Neither of the appellants held such qualifying degree as on the

(4 of 7) [SAW-227/2021]

said date and admittedly they completed the respective courses in

the month of December 2020 and hence, they were not qualified

to be considered for the advertised posts. On these grounds, Mr.

Thanvi sought dismissal of the appeals.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

impugned orders and other material placed on record.

It is undisputed that there was a clear stipulation in the

advertisement that the aspiring candidates would have to possess

requisite qualification as on the date of written examination.

Admittedly, neither of the petitioners were having such

qualification on 04.08.2020, on which date the written

examination was conducted by the Commission. They cleared

their respective qualifying examination in the month of December

and hence, they were clearly not holding the requisite degree so

as to be considered for selection in the subject recruitment

process. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs Union of

India [(2007) 4 SCC 54], 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

(5 of 7) [SAW-227/2021]

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 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

(6 of 7) [SAW-227/2021]

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

(7 of 7) [SAW-227/2021]

Kumar Sharma case No. II. All the more so when the subsequent judgment is by way of review of 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."

We are, therefore, of the opinion that considered in

light of the above Supreme Court judgment, the rejection of the

petitioners' candidature by the Commission and the dismissal of

their writ petitions by orders dated 17.02.2021 does not suffer

from any infirmity warranting interference therein.