Rajasthan High Court
Mahipal Dan S/O Shri Nakhat Dan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023:RJ-JP:19952]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5773/2023
1. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo-
Jhariya, Churu, Rajasthan
2. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Shish Pal Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Gram Pipli, Sikar, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
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
And other similar matters
as per Schedule appended
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Supriya Saxena
Mr. Vigyan Shah
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini,
Mr. Aamir Khan
Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar
Mr. Sukhraj Singh Rathore
Ms. Komal Kumari Giri,
Mr. Bajrang Sepat
Mr. Aditya Sharma,
Mr. Chandra Shekhar
Mr. Sunil Kumar Sigodiya
Mr. Prateek Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaswant Persoya
Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta
Mr. M. F. Baig
Mr. Punit Singhvi
Mr. Ajay Singh Rathore
Ms. Anita Aggarwal
Mr. Himanshu
Mr. Sudhir Yadav
Dr. Y. C. Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
23/08/2023
1. The clinching issue arises in the instant batch of civil writ
petitions revolves around the fact that petitioner(s) could not
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (2 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
acquire the requisite educational qualification for the post of
Lecturer-School Education in different subjects upto the cut off
date i.e. the date of holding the written competitive examination
as per the essential condition envisaged in the advertisement
itself, yet petitioner(s) has come up with a case that he/she had
appeared in the examination of final year of the requisite
educational qualification held by the university concerned before
the date of competitive examination, however due to the
delay/negligence in declaring the result of the requisite
qualification on the part of the concerned university, subsequent
to the date of conducting the competitive examination, wherein
the petitioner(s) has passed the final year examination, and since
the delay in declaring the result of final year of the requsite
education qualification is not attributable to the petitioner(s) but
it is on the part of university concerned, therefore, the
candidature of petitioner(s) be considered on merit for
appointment on the post of Lecturer-School Education in
respective subjects treating him as having acquire the requisite
educational qualification. Few of writ petitioners have filed writ
petitions before rejection of the candidature by the RPSC and few
others have filed writ petitions after rejection of candidature by
the RPSC only on the ground of not acquiring the requisite
educational qualification for the post in question before or upto
the date of conducting the written competitive examination and
hence, all writ petitioners are jointly aggrieved by non-
consideration of their candidature on merits for appointment on
the post in question. The relevant condition as envisaged in the
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (3 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
advertisement issued by the RPSC and which is in conformity to
the proviso appended to Rule 17 of the Recruitment Rules of
2021, reads as under:-
शैक्षणषणिक अरअहत्हता सा संंबा संंधबंधी प्हतावंध्हतान :-
"पद की अपेक्षित श्षिकक्षणिक अरक तअर्हता के अके अंकतम वरक मव सक मकं सम्मिलित र्मिलित हुआ रित हुआ हो ुआ हो यअर्हता सक मकं सम्मिलित रित हुआ होने
वअर्हतां सम्मिलिअर्हता व्ुआ हो यक्ति भ भी आवेदन करने के कं सम्मिलिए पअर्हतात्र रित हुआ होहोगअर्हता, ककनतत उसे आुआ हो यित हुआ होहोग दअर्हतारअर्हता आुआ हो यित हुआ होकयोजित
प्रकतुआ हो यित हुआ होहोग भी पर भी्षिअर्हता से पवस क श्षिकक्षणिक अरक तअर्हता अकयोजिक त करने कअर्हता सबत स देनअर्हता रित हुआ होहोगअर्हता ।"
2. Since facts in all writ petitions are substantially similar and
legal point involved therein is identical in nature, therefore, with
consent of learned counsel for both parties, all writ petitions were
tagged and have been heard together. Accordingly, all writ
petitions would stand decide by this common judgment.
3. In order to deal with the issue in question, facts are taken
from SBCWP NO.5773/2023 (Kuldeep Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & ors.) as also from SBCWP NO.17689/2022 (Amit
Jangu Vs. State of Rajasthan).
3.1 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short
"the RPSC") through advertisement dated 28.04.2022 invited
applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer-School
Education in different subjects by way of Direct Recruitment under
the Rajasthan Education (State and Sub-Ordinate) Service Rules,
2021 (for short "Rules of 2021"). As per the condition envisaged in
the advertisement, it is clear that the aspirant/candidate in the
final year of the requisite educational qualification for the post in
relevant subjects will also be eligible to apply but he/she will have
to produce the proof of having acquired the requisite educational
qualification before the date of conducting competitive
examination by the RPSC.
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (4 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
3.2 Both petitioners of CWP NO.5773/2023 were undergoing their
post graduation course and were studying in final year of P.G.
Course, however pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.04.2022
being eligible applied for the post of School Lecturer in English and
Political Science. The written competitive examination of
petitioners were conducted by RPSC on 11.10.2022, 14.10.2022
and 17.10.2022. Prior to that, both petitioners had appeared in
the examination of final year of P.G. Course on 26.07.2022 and
28.07.2022, however result of the same came to be declared on
10.11.2022 and they have passed the P.G. Course. Petitioners
were also declared to qualify the written competitive examination
by RPSC, but apprehending that their candidature would not be
considered on merits, since the requisite qualification of P.G. was
not acquired before the date of conducting the competitive
examination, apparently due to declaration of result of final year
of P.G. subsequently, hence they have filed writ petition for
consideration of their candidature on merits for appointment on
the post of School Lecturer (School Education) for subject English
and Political Science.
3.3 In SBCWP No.17689/2022, both petitioners have make out a
case that they applied for the post of School Lecturer in subject
Geography pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.04.2022 and
at the time of filing Online application forms, they were studying
in the final year of M.A. (Geography) at Vardhman Mahaveer Open
University (VMOU). As per the schedule of VMOU, the final year
examination of M.A. (Geography) of petitioner No.1 was allegedly
due in December, 2021 and of petitioner No.2 in January 2021,
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (5 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
however due to Covid-19, the examination of final year were not
conducted by the VMOU on time and same were conducted on
01.08.2022 and 03.08.2022. On the same dates, final year
examination of M.Sc. (Geography), M.A. Geography (Final)
(Lateral Entry) was also conducted by VMOU and the result of
such examination was declared on 15.10.2022, yet the university
committed delay in declaring the result of M.A. Geography (Final)
of petitioners as the same was declared/uploaded on 22.10.2022.
Prior to the declaration of result of petitioners for final year of M.A.
Geography on 22.10.2022, the RPSC conducted the written
competitive examination for School Lecturer (Geography) on
15.10.2022 and 16.10.2022 by way of two papers (Paper-I &
Paper-II). Petitioners state that it is absolutely a fault on the part
of VMOU in declaring/uploading the result of final year of M.A.
(Geography) of petitioners on 22.10.2022, though the result of
other P.G. Degree Course i.e. M.Sc. Geography (Final) and M.A.
Geography (Final) (Lateral Entry) had been declared on
15.10.2022. The result of petitioners also be treated to be
declared on 15.10.2022 instead of 22.10.2022, and hence,
petitioners be held eligible to acquire the requisite educational
qualification of P.G. Degree Course before or upto the date of
conducting the competitive written examination for the post of
School Lecturer (Geography) on 15.10.2022 by the RPSC, as such
their candidature be considered for appointment on the post in
question. After filing writ petition, both petitioners moved an
application disclosing that the RPSC has declared the provisional
result of the competitive examination on 16.05.2023 wherein both
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (6 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
petitioners have been shortlisted to check the eligibility and
document verification, petitioners may not be deprived from
consideration of their candidature on merits for the post of School
Lecturer (Geography), merely on account of delayed declaration of
the result of M.A. (Geography) final year, after conducting the
competitive examination by the RPSC. Be that as it may, the
clinching issue emerges that it is not in dispute that both
petitioners have not acquired the requisite educational
qualification of M.A. (Geography) before the cut off date i.e.
conducting the written competitive examination by the RPSC for
the post of School Lecturer (Geography), which is mandatory, as
per condition envisaged in the advertisement itself.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners would argue that it is true
that petitioners were pursuing their studies in the final year of
P.G. Course or B.Ed. Course or the equivalent requisite
qualification thereto for the post in question yet were eligible to
apply for the post. The final year examination of their respective
requisite educational qualification were held by the concerned
university, wherein petitioners have appeared but it is a fault on
the part of university in declaring the result belated, due to which
petitioners could not be put to suffer. It has been contended that
before conducting the written examination by the RPSC for the
post of School Lecturer in respective subjects, petitioners had
appeared in the final year examination of their respective
requisite educational qualification course, and in the result,
declared by the university, subsequent to the date of conducting
the written competitive examination, petitioners have
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (7 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
been declared passed, therefore, petitioners be treated to have
acquired the requisite educational qualification on the date of
conducting the competitive written examination by the RPSC. It
has been argued that some of universities like; Vardhman
Mahaveer Open University, Kota, Rajasthan Rishi Bhartrihari
Matsay University, Alwar, Maharshi Dayanand Saroswati
University, Ajmer have accepted the delay and fault on their part
in declaring the result of final year examination of the respective
degree courses of P.G./B.Ed., as the case may be, and have
written letters to the Secretary, RPSC to treat their students as
eligible for the competitive examination and requested that
students may not be put to suffer due to the delayed declaration
of result.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners have placed reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Laxmi
Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., [AIR 2023 SC 120], wherein
petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Health Worker
(Female), for which essential qualifications (Educational and
Other) which includes that a candidate must have successfully
completed one year six months/two years Auxiliary Nurses and
Midwife (ANM Training Course), including six months training and
the candidate was required duly registered with the Utter Pradesh
Nurses and Midwife Council, Lucknow. Petitioners completed the
requisite essential educational qualification, however, because of
late issuance of registration by U.P. Council, which was required
to be issued till the last date of submission of application form.
Petitioners could not produce the U.P. Council Registration either
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (8 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
on the last date of application and/or at the time of verification of
documents, and therefore, they were held ineligible. In that
context of factual matrix, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that there was no fault on the part of writ petitioners in not
producing the U.P. Council Registration within time, therefore,
petitioners could not have been made to suffer. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court placed reliance on its decision in the previous
case Narendra Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors, [(2022)
3 SCC 286].
6. Per contra, learned counsel for RPSC has urged that since it
is not in dispute that petitioners failed to acquire the essential
and requisite qualification of PG/B.Ed./Degree Course, or
equivalent thereto, whichever is required to be possessed by the
candidate for the respective subject of Lecturer-School Education,
as prescribed in the advertisement upto the cut off date, it means
the date of conducting the competitive written examination for
the post in question by the RPSC, therefore, writ petitioners
cannot be treated as eligible for consideration of their candidature
for the post in question. It may be true that writ petitioners have
acquired the requisite qualification after the cut off date, but
same is insignificant in terms of the condition enumerated in the
advertisement itself, which is in conformity to the proviso
appended to Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021. It has been argued
that such condition is not under challenge, therefore, the rigor of
the condition would operate in its term, as exists, and petitioners
have accepted the conditions, hence they would be abide by the
same. It has been argued that the cut off date fixed by the RPSC
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (9 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
for acquiring the essential and requisite qualification deserves to
be given its due credence and may not be
disturbed/extended/relaxed by the Court in exercise of powers of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
more particularly, when such cut off date is in conformity to the
statutory rules, and there is no rule to relax such condition. The
proposition of law on the issue in question is well established in
catena of judgments, reference of few have been made and
therefore, it has been prayed that the prayer of writ petitioners is
devoid of substance and is not liable to be accepted.
7. Heard. Considered.
8. It is not in dispute that petitioners do not possess the
requisite educational qualification as required for appointment on
the post of Lecturer-School Education in the subject concerned
enumerated in the advertisement dated 28.04.2022, on the date
of submission of the Online application forms. According to
petitioners, they were studying in the final year of the requisite
educational qualification in different universities, yet were eligible
to apply for the post in question as per terms and conditions
envisaged in the advertisement to the effect that the person, who
has appeared or is appearing in the final year of the requisite
educational qualification of the post, will also be eligible to apply,
but the person concerned will have to produce proof of having
acquired the educational qualification before the competitive
examination conducted by the RPSC. Since the petitioners have
applied in different subjects for the post of Lecturer-School
Education pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.04.2022, and
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (10 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
the requisite educational qualification are different subject wise
and vacancies for the post of Lecturer-School Education were
notified for as many as 26 subjects from Serial No.1 to 26,
therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the requisite
educational qualification as indicated in the advertisement itself,
alongwith the condition concerned to petitioners thus:-
"अणनव्हतारअ शैक्षणषणिक रक योोगरहत्हताए :
(1) उपर्अक्हता पद क्रम सा संंखर्हता 6 से 20 हतक के णिरे :- Post Graduate or equivalent
examination recognized by UGC in the relevant subject with Degree or Diploma in
Education recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education/Government.
(पद क्रम सा संंखर्हता 1 के णिरे):- Post Graduate or equivalent examination recognized by UGC
with Zoology/Botany / Micro Biology/Bio Technology provided they have studied Botany
and Zoology at Gradutation level with Degree or Diploma in Education recognized by the
National Council of Teacher Education/Government.
(पद क्रम सा संंखर्हता 2 के णिरे (i) Post Graduate or equivalent examination recognized by UGC
in Commerce with B.Com. OR Post Graduate or equivalent examination recognized by
UGC in Commerce, having at least two teaching subject for Higher Secondary classes as
prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer for Commerce group.
(ii) Degree or Diploma in education recognized by the National Council of Teacher
Education/Government.
पद क्रम सा संंखर्हता 3 के णिरे):- Post Graduate or equivalent examination recognized by UGC
in Music or the qualification declared equivalent thereto by the Government.
पद क्रम सा संंखर्हता 4 के णिरे):- Post Graduate or equivalent examination recognized by UGC
in Drawing or the qualification declared equivalent thereto by the Government. OR Diploma
of five years' duration in Arts of any school/college of Arts recognized by the Government.
(पद क्रम सा संंखर्हता 5 के णिरे):- Post Graduate or equivalent examination recognized by UGC
in Agriculture in either Agronomy Horticulture/Animal Husbandry with Degree or Diploma
in Education recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education/Government.
पद सा संंखर्हता 21 से 25 के णिरे - Graduate or equivalent examination recognized by UGC with
Degree or Diploma in Physical Education and Full term National Institute of Sports (NIS)
Certificate from any branch of National Institute of Sports.
(पद क्रम सा संंखर्हता 26 के णिरे):- Graduate or equivalent examination recognized by UGC and
Post Graduate in Physical Education/ M.P.Ed. (2 years duration) recognized by the National
Council of Teacher Education/Government.
(2) Working Knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari Script and knowledge of Rajasthani
Culture.
शैक्षणषणिक अरअहत्हता सा संंबा संंधबंधी प्हतावंध्हतान :-
"पद की अपेक्षित श्षिकक्षणिक अरक तअर्हता के अके अंकतम वरक मव सक मकं सम्मिलित र्मिलित हुआ रित हुआ हो ुआ हो यअर्हता सक मकं सम्मिलित रित हुआ होने वअर्हतां सम्मिलिअर्हता
व्ुआ हो यक्ति भ भी आवेदन करने के कं सम्मिलिए पअर्हतात्र रित हुआ होहोगअर्हता, ककनतत उसे आुआ हो यित हुआ होहोग दअर्हतारअर्हता आुआ हो यित हुआ होकयोजित प्रकतुआ हो यित हुआ होहोग भी
पर भी्षिअर्हता से पवस क श्षिकक्षणिक अरक तअर्हता अकयोजिक त करने कअर्हता सबत स देनअर्हता रित हुआ होहोगअर्हता।".
9. It is not in dispute that the Direct Recruitment for the
post of Lecturer-School Education is conducted pursuant to
the advertisement dated 28.04.2022 under the statutory
rules of 2021. The condition to acquire the requisite eligibility
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (11 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
qualification for the post in question before the written
examination for that post by the RPSC as envisaged in the
advertisement, and extracted hereinabove, stands in
conformity to the proviso appended to Rule 17 of Rules of
2021. For ready reference, Rule 17 with its proviso is
reproduced hereunder:-
"17. Academic and Technical qualifications and
experience:- A candidate for direct recruitment to the
post specified in Scheduled-I or Schedule-II, as the
case may be, shall possess;
(i) the qualifications and experience as prescribed in
column 5 of Scheduled-I or Scheduled-II, as the case may
be; and
(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari Script
and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture;
"Provided that the person who has appeared or is
appearing in the final year examination of the course
which is the requisite educational qualification for
the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for
direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the
post but he/she shall have to submit proof of having
acquired the requisite educational qualification to the
appropriate selection agency:-
(a) before appearing in the main examination, where
selection is made through two stages of written
examination and interview;
(b) before appearing in interview where selection is
made through written examination and interview; or
(c) before appearing in the written examination
or interview where selection is made through
only written examination or only interview, as
the case may be."
10. It is also not in dispute that the selection process for the
Direct Recruitment of Lecturer-School Education pursuant to
advertisement dated 28.04.2022 is through conducting written
competitive examination by the RPSC. Such process of selection
is also enumerated in the advertisement itself in following words:-
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (12 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
चरन पणक्रर्हता अभुआ हो यकरक ुआ हो यियों कअर्हता चुआ हो यन प्रकतुआ हो यित हुआ होहोग भी पर भी्षिअर्हता के मअर्हताके माधुआ हो यम से ककुआ हो यअर्हता
योजिअर्हताुआ हो येहोगअर्हता। आवशुआ हो यकतअर्हता पड़ने पर आुआ हो यित हुआ होहोग दअर्हतारअर्हता उत्तरपत्रक /
उत्तरपतकरतकअर्हता के म मूलस ुआ हो यअर्हताके अंकन मव रकेकं सम्मिलिके अंहोग / मित हुआ होडरे शन/
नरमक ं सम्मिलिअर्हताइयोजिेशन (सअर्हतामअर्हतानुआ हो य भीकरक्षणि) पद्धकत कित हुआ हो अपनअर्हताुआ हो यअर्हता योजिअर्हता सकेहोगअर्हता
परबंधीक्ष्हता क्हता स ्हतान पर भी्षिअर्हता ररअर्हतान व कतकर के सके अंबके अंध मव ुआ हो यरअर्हतासमुआ हो य सकस चत ककुआ हो यअर्हता
एवा सं म्हतार योजिअर्हताुआ हो येहोगअर्हता ।
परबंधीक्ष्हता रक योजन्हता उ्ति पदियों से सके अंबके अंकधत सेवअर्हता कनुआ हो यम के कनुआ हो यम 22 के अनतसअर्हतार
व प्हताठ्रक्रम प्रकतुआ हो यित हुआ होहोग भी पर भी्षिअर्हता के रूप मव आुआ हो यित हुआ होकयोजित की योजिअर्हताुआ हो येहोग भी। उ्ति कनुआ हो यम मव
उ मूलं सम्मिलिेकखित पर भी्षिअर्हता ुआ हो यित हुआ होयोजिनअर्हता के अनतसअर्हतार पर भी्षिअर्हता वरततकनष्ठ रूप मव
ं सम्मिलि भी योजिअर्हताुआ हो येहोग भी कयोजिसके सभ भी प्रश्न वरततकनष्ठ प्रकअर्हतार के रियोंहोगे।
कवरतत् पअर्हतादुआ हो यक्रम आुआ हो यित हुआ होहोग की बेवसअर्हताइट पर पर ् क से योजिअर्हतार भी ककुआ हो यअर्हता
योजिअर्हताुआ हो येहोगअर्हता।
11. The merit list of selected candidates would be prepared as
per the score of candidates in the written examination subject-
wise and candidates are required to be shortlisted in the
provisional merit list for eligibility checking by way of ensuing the
procedure of document verification. Thus, taking into
consideration, the criteria of selection process, the condition of
acquiring the requisite educational qualification by the aspirant/
candidate before conducting the competitive written examination
by the RPSC is applicable for petitioners, which is envisaged in
the advertisement itself and has coherence with the statutory
rules 21 as well. Otherwise also, it may be observed that such
condition is not under challenge or in question, rather all
petitioners have applied/participated in the direct recruitment for
the post in question within the scope of such condition.
12. As far as factual matrix is concerned, none of petitioners has
acquired educational qualification, as required for the post of
Lecturer-School Education in the concerned subject wherein
he/she has applied before the date of conducting the competitive
written examination by the RPSC. In the opinion of this Court,
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (13 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
candidates who were pursuing their studies of final year in the
requisite eligible qualification and either had appeared in the
examination or appearing, took a chance and opportunity to
participate in the recruitment process, which is solely subject to
condition of acquiring the requisite educational qualification by
declaration of result of the final year examination before
conducting the written competitive examination by the RPSC. The
cut off date i.e. the date of conducting the written competitive
examination, is required to be given its due credence. As firstly,
petitioners were well aware about such cut off date at the time of
applying for the post in question since the condition is
enumerated in the advertisement itself, secondly, such cut off
date is in conformity to the proviso of Rule 17 of the statutory
Rules 2021 governing the present recruitment, and thirdly,
learned counsel for petitioners could not point out any rule, which
extends power to the State Government to relax such rigor of
condition. Petitioners have sought to take resort on humanitarian
ground that the requisite educational qualification before the date
of conducting of competitive written examination could not be
acquired only due to delay in declaration of result of the final year
examination by concerned university, and for which petitioners
are not at fault. Petitioners have sought to impress upon the
factum of equity that in some of cases, the delay of declaration of
result is only of few dates. Petitioners have also sought to raise a
circumstance that the session was delayed by the concerned
university due to Pandemic Covid-19 and examinations of final
year were delayed. It has been pointed out that universities too
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (14 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
have accepted delay on their part on account of unavoidable
circumstances. In the opinion of this Court, resort to such factual
circumstances, for whatsoever reason may be in declaration of
the result of the final year examination, in respect of the requisite
educational qualification, does not come to rescue of petitioners
as petitioners knowingly and willingly applied/ participated in the
direct recruitment process for the post in question being fully
aware to face such kind of situation. It is an admitted case of
petitioners that they were required to acquire the requisite
educational qualification for consideration of their candidature on
merits for the post in question before holding the written
competitive examination by the RPSC. The fortuitous
circumstances, where result of any of the petitioner is declared
with a delay of few days, after conducting the written competitive
examination, does not confer any right of consideration of his/her
candidature on merits. The legal proposition of law has been
settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments in respect of
giving credence to the cut off date fixed by the recruitment
agency, and therefore, the principle of stair decisis operates
against the petitioner in this respect.
13. It is undisputed fact that in the advertisement dated
28.04.2022, pursuant to which petitioners have applied and
participated in the direct recruitment for the post in question,
there was a clear stipulation that aspiring candidate will have to
possess the requisite educational qualification before the date of
conducting the competitive examination by the RPSC. Admittedly,
none of the petitioners could acquire the requisite eligibility
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (15 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
qualification before the date of competitive examination of that
post for that subject for which he/she applied. The cut off date to
acquire the requisite eligibility qualification, as indicated in the
advertisement, would apply in its full rigor, more so when same is
in conformity to the statutory rules, and there is no provision to
relax/extends such cut off date.
14. In this respect, the proposition of law as expounded by the
Apex Court in 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 cut off 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.,
RAJA.P. Public Se 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
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (16 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
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 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 of 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
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (17 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
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 the first judgment in
which case there are no judgments 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."
15. The aforesaid proposition of law has recently been
followed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in
case of Ramesh Chand Meena Vs. State of
Rajasthan:D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.227/2021 and
connected appeal, vide judgment dated 18.01.2022
delivered by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. The candidature
of writ petitioners for direct recruitment on the post of
School Lecturer pursuant to the notification dated
29.03.2018 was rejected by the RPSC on account of not
acquiring the requisite qualification before the date of
holding the written competitive examination. Writ petitions
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (18 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
were dismissed by learned Single Judge and the judgment
was affirmed by the Division Bench placing reliance upon
the proposition of law as expounded by the Apex Court in
case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra).
16. It would not be out of place to make a reference of
the judgment of Apex Court in case of State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra reported in (2017)
11 SCC 521 which also through light on the clinching issue
involved herein. The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced hereunder:-
"6. 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 possess the
prescribed qualifications and was considered
and appointed to the post. Therefore, the so-
called confession made by the officer in the
Court that persons having lower merit than the
respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic),
having been based on misconception is wholly
irrelevant. The learned single Judge clearly
erred in relying on such a statement for issuing
the direction for appointment of the respondent.
The Division Bench was equally in error in
confirming the judgment of the learned single
Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single
Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is
unsustainable and has to be set aside."
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (19 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
17. In the light of the afore-referred proposition of law,
petitioners are not entitled to claim a right of consideration of
their candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturer-School
Education in subject concern on merits, once it is undisputed fact
that they could not acquire the requisite eductional qualification
upto the cut off date i.e. holding the written competitive
examination for the post in question by the RPSC.
18. As far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered
in case of Laxmi Saroj (supra) placing reliance on its previous
judgment in case of Narendra Singh (supra) whereupon
learned counsel for petitioners have vehemently placed reliance is
concerned, both judgments were delivered in entirely different
context and facts, which are not similar to the case of present
writ petitioners. In case of Narendra Singh (supra), petitioners
applied for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the
State of Haryana, while he was working as JVT Teacher at
Government Primary School, Haryana. As per terms of the
advertisement, writ petitioner was required to submit No
Objection Certificate (NOC) of its appointing authority, at the time
of interview for the advertised post. Petitioner had applied for
issuance of NOC in time but there was delay on the part of
Government in issuing the NOC, despite interim order passed by
the High Court and further when the petitioner was selected on
merits for the advertised post of Assistant Professor, he was
allowed to join, without production of NOC. Later on his
appointment was cancelled, although prior to that NOC has been
issued, therefore, in such backdrop of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (20 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
Court directed respondents to grant appointment to writ
petitioner and observed in para No.20 thus:-
"20. Once it is found that there was no lapse and/or
delay on the part of the appellant and/or there was no
fault of the appellant in not producing the NOC at the
relevant time and when it was produced immediately
on receipt of the same and that too before the
appointments were made and when it is found that
the last candidate, who is appointed i.e. Respondent 4
herein is having less marks than the appellant and
thus the appellant is a more meritorious candidate
than the last candidate appointed i.e. Respondent 4,
to deny him the appointment is not justifiable at all.
He cannot be punished for no fault of him. Both, the
learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench' of
the High Court have committed grave error in not
exercising the jurisdiction vested in it and in not
directing the respondents to appoint the appellant
though he is found to be more meritorious candidate
than the last candidate appointed i.e. Respondent 4."
The aforesaid proposition of law was followed in case of
Laxmi Saroj (supra), where writ petitioner was essentially
required registration with the U.P. Council upto the last date of
submission of application form pursuant to the advertisement for
the post of Health Worker (Female), apart from the requisite
educational qualification. The writ petitioners were in possession
of the requisite educational qualification and were registered with
M.P. Council. They have applied for registration before the U.P.
Council and in the process of registration, M.P. Council furnished
NOC, however U.P. Council took time to issue the registration
certificate and later on registration certificate was issued after the
date of submission on application form. Therefore, in that process
of issuing registration certificate by the U.P. Council, petitioner
was not found at fault and following the proposition of law is
expounded in case of Narendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (21 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and directed respondents
to appoint the appellant on the post of Health Worker (Female)
who was already in possession of the requisite educational
qualification. Both judgments have been delivered in altogether
different nature of facts, therefore, do not provide any help to
writ petitioners, who have undisputedly failed to acquire the
requisite educational qualification for the post in question before
conducting of written competitive examination by the RPSC.
19. The upshot of above discussions and reasonings made
hereinabov is that writ petitioners may not be treated as eligible
for want of not acquiring the requisite educational qualification
before or upto the cut off, date as fixed by the RPSC, in
advertisement itself for consideration of their candidature on
merits for the post of Lecturer-School Education in respective
subject pursuant to advertisement dated 28.04.2022.
20. As a result, all writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
Since writ petitions itself have been dismissed on merits, interim
orders passed in favour of any of writ petitioner/s would come to
an end, automatically.
21. Stay applications and any other pending application, if any,
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/217 to 266 except 242
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (22 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
SCHEDULE
S.No Item No. Writ Petition No. Party Name
1. 218 SBCWP No.17689/2022 Amit Jangu The State of
Raj. & ors.
2. 219 SBCWP No.595/2023 Sarwan Ram The State of
Raj. & ors.
3. 220 SBCWP No.596/2023 Yashpal Singh The State of
Meena Raj. & ors.
4. 221 SBCWP No.597/2023 Surendra Kumar The State of
Raj. & ors.
5. 222 SBCWP No.1378/2023 Varsha Gupta The State of
Raj. & ors.
6. 223 SBCWP No.1379/2023 Rubiya Parveen The State of
Raj. & ors.
7. 224 SBCWP No.1714/2023 Karan Singh The State of
Kasotia Raj. & ors.
8. 225 SBCWP No.3175/2023 Hitpal Singh The State of
Ranawat Raj. & ors.
9. 226 SBCWP No.6752/2023 Sapna Yadav The State of
Raj. & ors.
10. 227 SBCWP No.6935/2023 Virendra kumar The State of
Sharma Raj. & ors.
11. 228 SBCWP No.7726/2023 Kuldeep Singh The State of
Raj. & ors.
12. 229 SBCWP No.7728/2023 Ramu Kumar The State of
Meena Raj. & ors.
13. 230 SBCWP No.8211/2023 Ganeshram & Ors. The State of
Raj. & ors.
14. 231 SBCWP No.8580/2023 Surbhi Thakuriya The State of
Raj. & ors.
15. 232 SBCWP No.8583/2023 Kiran Kalwar & The State of
Anr. Raj. & ors.
16. 233 SBCWP No.8632/2023 Vikash Kumar & The State of
Ors. Raj. & Anr
17. 234 SBCWP No.9585/2023 Monika The State of
Raj. & ors.
18. 235 SBCWP No.9586/2023 Manisha The State of
Raj. & ors.
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (23 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
19. 236 SBCWP No.9679/2023 Madhu Yadav The State of
Raj. & ors.
20. 237 SBCWP No.9728/2023 Hemlata Jaju The State of
Raj. & ors.
21. 238 SBCWP No.9729/2023 Arvind Vishnoi The State of
Raj. & ors.
22. 239 SBCWP No.9730/2023 Mohit Patidar The State of
Raj. & ors.
23. 240 SBCWP No.9731/2023 Antu Sharma The State of
Raj. & ors.
24 241 SBCWP No.9732/2023 Chena Ram The State of
Raj. & ors.
25 243 SBCWP No.10250/2023 Omprakash Singh The State of
Raj. & ors.
26 244 SBCWP No.10360/2023 Garima Kalwi The State of
Raj. & ors.
27 245 SBCWP No.10488/2023 Jaichand Bhakar The State of
Raj. & ors.
28 246 SBCWP No.10588/2023 Rishhikant Joshi The State of
Raj. & ors.
29 247 SBCWP No.10589/2023 Sunil Kumar & The State of
Ors. Raj. & ors.
30 248 SBCWP No.10591/2023 Mahipal Dan The State of
Raj. & ors.
31 249 SBCWP No.10844/2023 Jetha Ram The State of
Raj. & ors.
32 250 SBCWP No.10908/2023 Rewant Ram The State of
Raj. & ors.
33 251 SBCWP No.10950/2023 Ashok Kumar The State of
Meena Raj. & ors.
34 252 SBCWP No.10970/2023 Dwarka Das The State of
Raj. & ors.
35 253 SBCWP No.11211/2023 Jyoti Gocher The State of
Raj. & ors.
36 254 SBCWP No.11215/2023 Rajkumar Meena The State of
Raj. & ors.
37 255 SBCWP No.11362/2023 Bindu Lodha The State of
Raj. & ors.
38 256 SBCWP No.11460/2023 Mamata The State of
Raj. & ors.
[2023:RJ-JP:19952] (24 of 24) [CW-5773/2023]
39 257 SBCWP No.11622/2023 Narneder Kumar The State of
Raj. & ors.
40 258 SBCWP No.11682/2023 Hardeepender The State of
Singh Raj. & ors.
41 259 SBCWP No.11862/2023 Veekesh Singh The State of
Gurjar Raj. & ors.
42 260 SBCWP No.12006/2023 Mainka Meena The State of
Raj. & ors.
43 261 SBCWP No.12009/2023 Sharwan Ram The State of
Meghwal Raj. & ors.
44 262 SBCWP No.12223/2023 Yogesh Kumar The State of
Raj. & ors.
45 263 SBCWP No.12247/2023 Deepika Nagar The State of
Raj. & ors.
46 264 SBCWP No.12433/2023 Pooja Parihar The State of
Raj. & ors.
47 265 SBCWP No.12486/2023 Rakesh Seervi The State of
Raj. & ors.
48 266 SBCWP No.12629/2023 Ms. Kritika The State of
Agarwal Raj. & ors.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
