Rajasthan High Court
Priyanka Chauhan D/O Dr. Bharat ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023:RJ-JP:29095]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 122/2023
Bhumika Rathore D/o Mohan Singh Rathore, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
J-19, Adarsh Nagar, New Multan Jain Mandir, Neyar Balghar School,
Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302004.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Siksha Sankul, Jln
Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 970/2021
1. Arvind Choudhary S/o Shri Virendra Choudhary, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Vpo Duriyan, Via Gudha Gorjika Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
2. Shailendra Kumar S/o Jagjeevan Ram, R/o B52, Mahesh
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rakesh Chouhan S/o Om Prakash, R/o 4-A, Ganpati Nagar,
Ganpatpura, Mansarover, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Swati Jain D/o Kamal Kumar Jain, R/o Opp. Vyas Haveli, Ajad
Chowk, Malpura, Distt. Tonk (Raj.).
5. Prashant Meel S/o Dhanne Singh Meel, R/o Inside Charan
Singh Gate, Ward No. 57, Nawalgarh Road, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
6. Damodar Singh Dewal S/o Govind Singh Dewal, R/o 21/1,
Vaishali Nagar, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.).
7. Hitesh Prajapat S/o Bhanwar Lal Prajapat, R/o Behind Railway
Mal Godown, Ward No. 45, Sujjangarh, Distt. Churu - 331507
(Raj.).
8. Hemant Kumar Darji S/o Hanuman Mal Darji, R/o Dhanawto
Ka Bas, Ward No. 6, Bidasar, Distt. Churu (Raj.).
9. Harendra Phoolfagar S/o Urja Ram, R/o Village Khanwar, R/o
Village Rol, Distt. Nagaur - 341027 (Raj.).
10. Sunil Punia S/o Balveer Singh Punia, R/o Village Tigiyas, Post
Mandrella, Tehsil Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
11. Amit Kumar Sarwa S/o Ghasiram Sarwa, R/o Village Kamalsar,
Post Diloi South, Tehsil Malsisar, Via Bissu, Distt. Jhunjhunu
(Raj.).
12. Vinod Kumar Saharan S/o Ranjeet Singh, R/o Village - 21 Ml,
Post Bakhatanwali, Ward No. 03, Shri Ganganagar-335001
(Raj.).
13. Urmila Choudhary D/o Nanu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Didwana Road, Mirdha Nagar, Kuchaman City, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
14. Kunwar Singh S/o Shri Dharam Pal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (2 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
102/51, Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Lohakhan, Ajmer, Distt. Ajmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Siksha Sankul, Jln
Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18657/2022
Kajal Bardhar W/o Kapil Bardhar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o B-18F
Bardhar Lane Todarmal Marg, Near Shiv Circle Banipark, Jaipur
Rajasthan 3021016.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Commissionerate Of College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Block-Iv, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur 302015,
Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. University Grants Commission (Ugc), Through The Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18659/2022
Neelima Modi D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Modi, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Shri Shyam Residency, Plot No. 28, Flat No. F-1, Ganpati Nagar,
Mangyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Shankul, Jln
Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18730/2022
1. Sandhya Jajoria D/o Sunder Lal Jajoria, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o D-19, Surya Nagar, District Alwar, Rajasthan - 301001.
2. Rohit Kumar S/o Rameshwar Prasad, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village And Post Puranabas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (3 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
Sikar, Rajasthan - 332713.
3. Tabassum Parveen D/o Shiekh Sharafat Hussain, Aged About
36 Years, R/o 367/ 13, Ward No. 32, Behind New Madarsa
Eidgah, Azad Nagar, Khanpura, District Ajmer, Rajasthan -
305001.
4. Varsha Maheshwari D/o Mahaveer Prasad Gattani, Aged About
33 Years, R/o 27-A, Alaknanda Colony, Near Adarsh Nagar
Railway Station, District Ajmer - 305001.
5. Dr. Divyaa Sarswat D/o Nand Kishor Sarswat, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Plot No. 2B, Vinayak Vihar Colony, Jaipur Road,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
6. Gayatri Kumari D/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
2/71, New Vidhyadhar Nagar, Sector 2, Jaipur - 302023.
7. Dinesh Kumar Meghvanshi S/o Ram Dayal, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Chat, Post Bhatiyani, Tehsil Nasirabad,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
8. Shilpi Khandelwal D/o Gopal Prasad Khandelwal, Aged About
43 Years, R/o 171, Gayatri Nagar-A, Maharani Farm,
Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302018.
9. Ati Agarwal D/o Rajesh Garg, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 3/19,
Goverdhan Vilas Colony, 100 Feet Road, Sector -14, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Monika Sheoran D/o Anter Singh Sheoran, Aged About 31
Years, R/o C-18, Sector -1, Sainik Colony, District Churu,
Rajasthan - 331001.
11. Chirag Parmar S/o Himmat Lal Parmar, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o 3/94, Mukta Prasad Colony, District Bikaner.
12. Ashish Prajapati S/o Harji Lal Prajapati, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o 2-B-15, Jawahar Nagar Housing Board, Matunda Road,
District Bundi, Rajasthan.
13. Nidhi Jain D/o Narendra Lal Jain, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 68,
Kiran Kunj, Opposite Lolo Shed A.c.f.c. Colony, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Siksha Sankul, Jln
Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18793/2022
Dr. Ritika Moolchandani D/o Late Chelaram Gurubaxani W/o Late Shri
Manish Kumar Moolchandani, Aged About 46 Years, R/o C- Block,
Panchsheel Nagar, Behind Kshetrapal Hospital, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (4 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Siksha Sankul, Jln
Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18825/2022
Maryam Nasir Ansari D/o Shri Nasir Abrar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
C/o Raees Miyan Patwari, In Front Of Aslam Marriage Hall, Gulzar
Bagh, Tonk-304001 (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary To The
Government, Higher Education (Group-Iii) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Vice Chancellor, Jawahar
Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Controller Of Examination, University Of Rajasthan, Jawahar
Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan
305001.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18832/2022
Komal Yadav D/o Kulwant Singh Yadav, W/o Dr. Vivek Yadav, Aged
About 38 Years, 1553, Ahiron Ki Imli, Luharo Ka Khurra, Ramganj,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department
Of College Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18852/2022
Kamal Krishna Ludhani S/o Shri Raj Kumar Ludhani, Aged About 27
Years, R/o H. No.22/11, Gulmohar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary.
3. Assistant Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (5 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
4. Commissioner, College Education, Directorate Of College
Education, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18883/2022
Naresh Dhaania S/o Man Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 118,
Rameshawardham Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan -
302039.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Siksha Sankul, Jln
Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19077/2022
Deep Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bajrang Singh Rathore, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 128, Shishak Colony, V-Street, Chopasni, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Shankul, Jln
Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19100/2022
Naveen Godhwal S/o Shri Jeetram Mali, Aged About 47 Years,
Permanent R/o 12, Tekri, Main Chauraha, Near Police Line, Udaipur. At
Present Care Of Late Shri Mahendrajeet Chauhan, 162/321, Pal Bichla,
Near Shive Mandir, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Shankul, Jln
Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19462/2022
Priyanka Chauhan D/o Dr. Bharat Veer Singh W/o Late Neeraj Patni,
Aged About 43 Years, R/o C-561, Parikrama Path, Opposite St.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (6 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
Stephen School, Panchsheel, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln
Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).
4. Vice-Chancellor/ Registrar, Bhagwant University, Sikar Road,
Ajmer - 305023.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19572/2022
Namrata Pabbun D/o Nirmal Kumar Pabbun, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
C/o M. Farmewala, Mohan Colony, Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Shankul, Jln
Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19683/2022
Madhavi Singaria D/o Shri Netram Singaria, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
137, Bhagwati Nagar-I, Kartarpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln
Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19720/2022
Neha Shekhawat D/o Shri Arjun Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Plot No. B-93, Singh Bhoomi, Khatipura, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (7 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
3. Assistant Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner,
Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19721/2022
Bajrang Lal S/o Shri Krishan Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village
Post Kumharia, Tehsil And District Fatehabad (Haryana).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary.
3. Assistant Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner,
Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1089/2023
Yash Bapna Son Of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bapna, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident Of 164, Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, College Education, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. Akhil Simlote
Mr. Harender Neel, Mr. Amit Jindal
Mr. Ankul Gupta, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun,Mr. Hemant Gupta
Mr. Naqvi Sehban
Mr. Aayush Mall
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta for
Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG
Mr. M.F. Baig
Mr. Nitin Jain
Mr. Aditya Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
Reserved On: 12/10/2023
Pronounced On: November 4th, 2023
BY THE COURT:
1. All writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and an
identical issue has been raised therein, therefore, with consent of
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (8 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
counsel for both parties, all writ petitions were tagged and have
been heard together. This common judgment would decide all writ
petitions.
2. The issue which has come up for consideration before this
Court is as to whether the candidature of writ petitioners for the
post of Assistant Professor (Business Administration) in
recruitment-2020 has wrongly been rejected by the RPSC and
petitioners on the basis of qualification of Master in Business
Administration (MBA) are eligible for appointment on the post of
Assistant Professor (Business Administration) in College Education
Department, under the Rajasthan Education Service (Collegiate
Branch) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Service Rules,
1986").
3. For the sake of convenience, facts from SBCWP
No.122/2023: Bhumika Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan, have been
taken for consideration.
4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission, Ajmer (for short "RPSC") vide advertisement
dated 18.12.2020, notified vacancies for the post of Assistant
Professor to be directly recruited under the Rules of 1986 to be
appointed in College Education. Petitioner is concerned with the
post of Assistant Professor (Business Administration) for which
127 posts were notified in the advertisement and, the eligibility for
the post in question as per Service Rules, 1986 is indicated in the
advertisement itself, which reads as under:-
ए लैक्षणिक िक यणिक यो योगिक योग्यतयोग्यताए ग (रायोग्यताजस्थयोग्यतान लशक्षयोग्यता संवयोग्यता
"उक्त सभसभी पदपदों कं ले लिए शक्ष
(महायोग्यता लवद्योग्यताे लििक य शयोग्यताखयोग्यता) लनिक यम,1986 की अनुसूचसभी- 1 कं लि० सग० 8 कं
अनुसयोग्यतारा):-
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (9 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
1. (I) Good academic record with at least 55% marks
(or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever
grading system is followed at the Master's Degree
level in the relevant subject from an India University,
or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign
university.
(ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the
candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility
Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR, or similar
test accredited by the UGC like SLET/ SET.
(iii) Candidates, who are, or have been awarded a
Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and
Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations,
2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the
minimum eligibility condition of NET/ SLET/ SET for
recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor.
(iv) NET/ SLET/ SET shall also not be required for
such masters programmes in disciplines for which
NET/ SLET/ SET is not conducted."
(underline is mine)
5. Petitioner states to possess the qualification of Masters in
Business Administration (MBA) and UGC NET in the subject of
management. Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor
(Business Administration) with the understanding that degree of
MBA is relevant subject of Master's degree, required for the post in
question and she also qualified UGC NET in "Management",
therefore, she fulfills the requisite eligibility/qualification for the
post. Petitioner appeared in the written examination and was
shortlisted for interview/document verification. At that stage,
candidature of petitioner was rejected by the RPSC vide order
dated 19.12.2022 (Ann-1), on two counts:
(i) As per advertisement, Masters degree in relevant subject
(Business Administration) is an essential qualification and
petitioner does not possess the Masters degree in the Commerce
stream; and
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (10 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
(ii) Petitioner does not possess the requisite certificate of
NET/SLET/SET or Ph.D. in the relevant subject of Business
Administration/Commerce.
6. It appears that the RPSC while not accepting the qualification
of MBA and UGC NET in management, to be included in the
requisite qualification for the post in question, relied upon the
report of Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017 (Ann-3), forwarded
by the Commissioner, College Education to RPSC, through letter
dated 26.05.2017 (Ann-4). In the report of expert and the letter,
it was clearly observed that "The persons holding the qualification
of MBA/ MBA with specialization in functional and related area/
MHRM/ MIB/ MMS/ MBI, are not eligible for the post of College
Lecturer (Business Administration) (Commerce)." Therefore,
petitioner, while challenging the rejection order by the RPSC dated
19.12.2022, has also challenged the letter dated 26.05.2017,
issued by the Commissioner, College Education to RPSC as also
the report of Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017, in the present
writ petition and prayed to quash and set aside the same.
Petitioner has also prayed to issue directions to respondents to
treat the petitioner eligible for the post of Assistant Professor
(Business Administration), in pursuance to the advertisement
dated 18.12.2020 and to consider her candidature on merits to
give appointment on the post in question.
7. In support of her case, petitioner has relied upon previous
report of Expert Committee of three members constituted by the
RPSC dated 07.06.2012 (Ann-15) as also placed reliance on the
report of Equivalence Committee dated 31.10.2022 (Ann-31),
produced on record along with the application (2/2023) dated
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (11 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
26.06.2023. It has additionally been prayed in the application that
since in the Equivalence Committee report dated 31.10.2022, the
Business Administration has been determined to be relevant/allied
subject as per UGC regulations 2018, which have been followed by
the State Government, vide Notification dated 14.10.2022
amending the Rajasthan Education Services (College Branch)
(Amendment) Rules, 2022 w.e.f. 18.07.2018 i.e. prior to the
present advertisement, therefore, petitioner be declared eligible
for the post in question in light of Expert Committee report dated
31.10.2022 at least.
8. In the joint reply to writ petition, filed by State and College
Education, respondents No.1 and 2 the eligibility of petitioner for
appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Business
Administration) has been declined, stating inter alia, that the
requisite qualification for the post in question as per
advertisement dated 18.12.2020 is that the candidate must have
Master's degree in the relevant subject and must have cleared the
National Eligibility Test (NET). The degree of MBA as possessed by
petitioner, is in technical education as per norms of All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and further the NET
qualification of petitioner is in the subject of "Management" which
is different from the Commerce stream. In respect of report of
Expert Committee dated 31.10.2022, it has been submitted that
the committee has adhered to the decision of the Hon'ble High
Court and while determining the relevant/allied subject of
Business Administration as per UGC Regulations, 2018, two
subjects have been held as allied and relevant subject which are
(i) Business Administration and Business Management (Commerce
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (12 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
Stream); and (ii) Commerce. As per report, UGC NET is required
in the subject "Commerce". Thus, it has been clarified that the
report does not include the degree of Master in Business
Administration as allied/relevant subject in Business
Administration as per UGC Regulations, 2018. The object has also
been made that the eligibility of petitioner is to be seen in terms
of the advertisement dated 18.12.2020, and the report of
Equivalence Committee dated 31.10.2022 does not apply to such
advertisement having no retrospective effect. Reliance has been
placed on two previous judgments of Rajasthan High Court, in
case of Ity Patni Vs. University of Rajasthan: SBCWP
No.10343/2018 decided vide order dated 07.01.2019 wherein
the similar issue was decided by the High Court and the degree of
Master in Business Administration (MBA) was not treated as
eligible and equivalent qualification for appointment on the post of
Assistant Professor (Business Administration) in the Department of
Commerce, University of Rajasthan, for which the requisite
qualification was M.Com in Business Administration, and on the
judgment in case of Vishnu Bawaree Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.: SBCWP No.25863/2018 dated 04.12.2018, which has
been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 26.07.2021
in DB SAW 1613/2018.
9. In the reply filed by respondent No.3- RPSC, it has been
contended that since the qualification of petitioner, MBA is not
Master's degree in the relevant subject as also the UGC NET of
petitioner is in subject of management, therefore, the candidature
of petitioner has rightly been rejected on the basis of letter dated
26.05.2017 issued by the College Education, whereby report of
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (13 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017 was forwarded to RPSC with
the opinion that the MBA degree is not covered in the requisite
qualification for appointment on the post of College Lecturer
(Business Administration) (now known as Assistant Professor). In
respect of previous Expert Committee report dated 07.06.2012, it
has been stated that the previous report was made in respect of
the previous recruitment pursuant to advertisement dated
21.09.2010, which has no effect on the present recruitment
pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.12.2020 and stands
superseded by the report of Expert Committee comprising of six
members dated 15.03.2017.
10. In rejoinder to the reply, filed by petitioner, it has been
contended that the UGC Regulations of 2010 were amended and
superseded by the University Grants Commission by promulgating
UGC Regulations, 2018 vide notification dated 18.07.2018. As per
UGC Regulations- 2018, the minimum qualification for
appointment of Lecturers in the University and Colleges has been
amended. Regulations of 2010 recognize only Master's degree in
the relevant subject, whereas in the Regulations, 2018, the
minimum requisite qualification is, Master's degree in a
concerned/ relevant/ allied subject. The Government of Rajasthan
has followed the UGC Regulations, 2018 w.e.f. 18.07.2018 vide
Notification of DOP dated 14.10.2022, and, the Rajasthan
Education Services (Collegiate Branch) (Amendment) Rules, 2022
have been promulgated, which prescribe the requisite qualification
as Master's degree in concerned/ relevant/ allied subject instead
of Master's degree in relevant subject. As per Notification of DOP
dated 14.10.2022, the amendment in Rules have come in force
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (14 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
w.e.f. 18.07.2018, therefore, such amendment is applicable to the
present recruitment started subsequent thereto, pursuant to
advertisement dated 18.12.2020. The alternative contention of
petitioner is that treating the MBA degree to be included at least in
the allied subjects of PG in Business Administration, petitioner be
held eligible for the post in question, in terms of UGC Regulations,
2018 followed by the State Government vide notification dated
14.10.2022 w.e.f. 18.07.2018. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment of the Division Bench dated 13.12.2021 passed in DB
Civil Writ Petition No.307/2021: Mali Ram Hindala Vs. The
State of Rajasthan and other analogous matters. Learned
counsel for petitioner has also strongly placed reliance on the
judgment dated 27.04.2013, delivered by the Coordinate Bench of
Rajasthan High Court in case of Kailash Chand Meena Vs.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission: SBCWP
No.18837/2012.
11. Heard counsel for both parties at length, perused the
material available on record and judgments referred by counsel for
both parties.
12. The discussion and reasons to arrive at conclusion by this
Court are as under:
(i) Undisputedly, petitioners applied for the post of Assistant
Professor in subject (Business Administration), pursuant to
advertisement dated 18.12.2020 issued by the RPSC. As per
advertisement, direct recruitment of Assistant Professor in the
College Education Department is required to be made under the
Rajasthan Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986. The
qualification prescribed in the Rules of 1986, is in consonance and
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (15 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
conformity with the minimum qualifications as prescribed by the
UGC for appointment of teachers under the UGC Regulations,
2010. The requisite qualification for the post in question as
notified in the advertisement is Master's degree in the relevant
subject and the qualification of NET/ SLET/ SET as the case may
be or Ph.D. in lieu thereof. The detail of qualification as indicated
in the advertisement, has already been referred hereinabove in
para 4.
(ii) In respect of qualification of MBA/ MBA with Specialization in
post functional and related areas/ MHRM/ MIB/ MMS/ MBI, in the
subject Business Administration, to consider such qualification as
eligibile and equivalence with the qualification of M.Com in
Business Administration conducted in the College and University,
an Expert Committee comprising of six members was constituted
under instructions of Commissionerate, College Education, Jaipur
and the Expert Committee opined and made its recommendation
dated 15.03.2017 (Ann-4 and Ann-R/2) in the manner that "The
following recommendation were made by the Committee- "In
college and university of state M.Com in Business Administration is
conducted in commerce faculty and MBA is conducted in Faculty of
Management studies. This shows that there is a vast difference in
the orientation and objectives of the two courses. There is a NET
qualification requirement for the appointment of a lecturer, which
are different for the faculty of commerce and faculty of
management studies. All the MBA courses require six weeks of
industry summer training while it is not required in the M.Com
(Business Administration) in commerce faculty. Along with the
above, MHRM (Master of Human Resource Management), MIB
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (16 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
(Master of International Business), MBI (Master of Bandking &
Insurance) courses are different from the M.Com (Business
Administration) course. After observing and examining the entire
facts, and records, the MBA/ MBA with specialization in post-
functional and related areas/ MHRM/ MIB/ MMS/ MBI degree
holders are not eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in
Business Administration."
(iii) The report of Expert Committee was forwarded by the
College Education to the RPSC along with letter dated 26.05.2017.
Thus, by the report of Expert Committee and letter, it is clear that
the educational qualification of MBA has not been treated as
Master's degree in relevant subject, which is required qualification
for appointment for the post of Assistant Professor (Business
Administration). Thus, following such report of Expert Committee
and decision of appointing authority, the Commissionerate, College
Education, the RPSC has rightly rejected the candidature of
petitioners as having no requisite qualification.
(iv) Petitioners have sought to challenge the report of Expert
Committee dated 15.03.2017 as also the letter dated 26.05.2017,
on the basis of previous report of Expert Committee dated
07.06.2012 (Ann-15). The previous report of Expert Committee
was comprising of three members was constituted by the RPSC, in
the middle of process of recruitment of College Lecturers in
Business Administration pursuant to advertisement dated
21.09.2010 and then the RPSC itself issued corrigendum dated
29.10.2012, treating the MBA degree holders as eligible and they
were also permitted to apply. Such corrigendum dated 29.10.2012
came to be challenged by way of filing writ petition
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (17 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
No.18837/2012 titled Kailash Chand Meena Vs. The State of
Rajasthan, wherein the High Court did not interfere with and
dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 27.04.2013, in
the backdrop of facts that such exercise was made by the RPSC to
fill all advertised posts, since the eligible candidates after
excluding the MBA degree holders were not found sufficient in
number.
(v) In the present cases, the RPSC itself has taken a stand that
the previous report dated 07.06.2012 stands superseded by the
high level Expert Committee report dated 15.03.2017, comprising
of six members, constituted under instructions of College
Education, as also on the basis of letter dated 26.05.2017, issued
by the College Education to RPSC. Thus, on facts, the RPSC itself
has taken the erstwhile report dated 07.06.2012 as superseded by
the subsequent report of higher level Expert Committee dated
15.03.2017 and same has been held binding upon the RPSC. It
may be observed herein that the erstwhile report of Expert
Committee dated 07.06.2012, though, was relied upon by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case of Kailash Chand Meena
(supra), however, same was not accepted as an operative report
for all time to come and same was treated as confined to the
recruitment by the RPSC pursuant to advertisement dated
29.09.2010, since the judgment of Kailash Chand Meena (supra)
was not followed by the High Court in subsequent decisions
delivered in case of Ity Patni (supra) and Vishnu Bawaree (supra).
The judgment delivered in case of Vishu Bawaree (supra) has
been affirmed by the Division Bench, which has binding effect on
this Court. Thus, petitioner cannot be allowed to rely upon the
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (18 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
report of Expert Committee dated 07.06.2012 in respect of the
present recruitment pursuant to advertisement dated 18.12.2020,
just to dispute the undisputed and subsequent report of Expert
Committee dated 15.03.2017 comprising six members which has
been followed by the College Education as well as by the RPSC.
(vi) It is trite law that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
of judicial review is not required to interfere with, in such realm
and jurisdiction of the recruitment agency and the appointing
authority in respect of deciding the requisite and eligible
qualification of candidates for appointment for the post in question
as per Rules and on the basis of opinion of Expert Committee.
Unless it is not established and proved that the decision of the
State Government and RPSC to rely upon such report of Expert
Committee dated 15.03.2017 is based on some extraneous or
irrelevant considerations or actuated by malafides in any manner,
this Court is not required to exercise its power of judicial review in
this regard. This Court finds support to reject the challenge to the
report of Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017 so also to letter
dated 26.05.2017, on the basis of judgment of Supreme Court,
delivered in case of Mohd. Shujat Ali Vs. Union of India [1974
AIR 1631]. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the
question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a
technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of
the relevant academic standard, and, fulfilled attainments of such
qualification and where the decision of the Government is based
on recommendations of an expert body, which possess the
requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging
such function, this Court, uninformed by relevant data and
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (19 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
unaided by the technical insights necessary for parties of
determining equivalence would not lightly disturb the decision of
the Government. It is only where the decision of Government is
shown to be based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or
actuated by malafies or irrational and perverse or manifestly
wrong that the Court would reach out its lethal area and strike
down the decision of the Government.
Thus, placing reliance by petitioners on the previous Expert
Committee report dated 07.06.2012 is of no consequence and
challenge to the Expert Committee report dated 15.03.2017 and
upon the decision of the State Government in the letter dated
26.05.2017 fails and rejected.
(vii) It cannot be disputed that the Master's degree in Business
Administration (MBA) is a post graduate degree in the field of
management and it is a technical education as per norms of All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). For appointment on
the post of Assistant Professor (Business Administration) in the
higher education/colleges, the eligibility of candidates is required
to be fulfilled as envisaged under the Rules of 1986 following UGC
Regulations, which recognizes the qualification of post gradutation,
like M.Com in Business Administration in the Commerce stream as
eligible qualification.
The similar issue came for consideration before the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case of Ity Patni (supra) where
petitioner raised an issue that the degree of Master in Business
Administration (MBA) be treated as equivalent to M.Com in
Business Administration and accordingly, petitioner be held eligible
for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Business
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (20 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
Administration) in the Department of Commerce, University of
Rajasthan. The High Court observed that the MBA is a
technical/professional degree and not an academic degree as
required for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor
(Business Administration) in the Department of Commerce,
University of Rajasthan. The Court opined that "I am of the
considered view that the post graduate requirement for the post of
Assistant Professor in the Department of Commerce of a
University would necessarily be academic and not a
technical/professional, but is plainly not an academic qualification
obtained under the Department of Commerce as it is only
following approval of the course by the All India Council for
Technical Education, from the Rajasthan Technical University." The
judgment delivered in case of Kailash Chand Meena (supra) was
considered and distinguished that same was passed under a
wholly distinct regime.
In another case of Vishu Bawaree (supra), the petitioner
filed writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan for
appointment on the post of Lecturer in subject EAFM. The
eligibility for the post was a post graduate (NET/SLET/SET or a
Ph.D. in lieu thereof in the subject concerned. Petitioner was in
possession of the degree of MBA. The Court opined that whether
both qualifications are equivalent, as contended by petitioner is
not for this to address and adjudicate, but the issue lies in the
domain expertise of the concerned academic experts. The
qualification of MBA was not held as eligible qualification for the
post of Lecturer in EAFM. The writ petition was dismissed. The
issue traveled to the Division Bench as petitioner preferred DB
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (21 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
SAW No.1613/2018. The Division Bench upheld that judgment of
learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal following the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Zahoor Ahamad
Rather Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad [(2019) 2 SCC 404]. It
would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant
observations/findings of the Division Bench which are applicable to
the present case as well against petitioners, as under:
"9. Indisputably, the eligibility qualification prescribed
for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in EAFM is
Masters Degree in EAFM and the qualification of NET/
SLET/ SET or Ph.D. in the concerned subject.
Admittedly, the appellant does not possess the
qualification as prescribed rather, he claims that the
qualification of MBA acquired by him should be
considered equivalent to Post Graduation in EAFM.
10. It is well settled that it is the prerogative of the
State as employer to prescribe the eligibility
qualification for recruitment to any post. It is not
within the domain of the Court to read something in
the statutory qualification prescribed, which is not
there and expand the eligibility qualification
prescribed or to prescribe a qualification different
than the statutorily prescribed on the basis of
possible intendment. Even, the candidate
possessing the higher qualification cannot always
claim that he satisfies the requirement of lower
eligibility qualification prescribed for any post in
service by the State as an employer, taking into
consideration the functions to be discharged by the
candidate to be appointed on the concerned post.
Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed no
error in holding that the matter with regard to the
equivalence of qualification cannot be gone into by
the Court and it is better left to be decided by
academic experts qualified for the work.
11. Moreover, in the instant case, the eligibility
qualification as prescribed require Masters Degree in
specific subjects and thus, the question of examining
the issue of equivalence of the degree of MBA
acquired by the appellant, does not arise for
consideration.
12. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors.: (2019) 2 SCC 404, where the
issue involved was whether the qualification of
Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics &
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (22 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
Communication would satisfy the requirement of
prescribed eligibility qualification of Matriculation with
ITI in Electric Trade, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
categorically held:
"26. We are in respectful agreement
with the interpretation which has been placed
on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the
subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The
decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions
of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would
not be permissible to draw an inference that a
higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes
the acquisition of another, albeit lower,
qualification. The prescription of qualifications
for a post is a matter of recruitment policy.
The State as the employer is entitled to
prescribe qualifications as a condition of
eligibility. It is no part of the role or function
of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of
the prescribed qualifications. Similarly,
equivalence of a qualification is not a matter
which can be determined in exercise of the
power of judicial review. Whether a particular
qualification should or should not be regarded
as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the
recruiting determine. The decision in Jyoti KK
turned on a specific statutory rule under
which the holding of a higher qualification
could presuppose the acquisition of a lower
qualification. The absence of such a rule in
the present case makes a crucial difference to
the ultimate outcome. In this view of the
matter, the Division Bench of the High Court
was justified in reversing the judgment of the
learned Single Judge and in coming to the
conclusion that the appellants did not meet
the prescribed qualifications. We find no error
in the decision of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a
post, the State, as employer, may legitimately
bear in mind several features including the
nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for
the efficient discharge of duties, the
functionality of a qualification and the content
of the course of studies which leads up to the
acquisition of a qualification. The state is
entrusted with the authority to assess the
needs of its public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall within the
domain of administrative decision making.
The State as a public employer may well take
into account social perspectives that require
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (23 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
the creation of job opportunities across the
structure. All these are essentially matters of
policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That
is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be
understood in the context of a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification which presupposes the
acquisition of a lower qualification was
considered to be sufficient for the post. It was
in the context of specific rule that the
decision in Jyoti KK turned.
28. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance
from the fact that the holder of an ITI
certification can obtain lateral entry to the
diploma course. The point of the matter,
however, is that none of the appellants fit the
description of candidates who had secured an
ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry
to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with
matric is required, a person who does not
hold that qualification is not eligible."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad (supra), it can be
safely concluded that a candidate for recruitment to
any post must possess the requisite qualification
statutorily prescribed and the Court exercising the
power of judicial review cannot expand upon the
ambit of prescribed qualification. The equivalence of
qualification is in exclusive domain of the recruiting
authority.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the order
impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does
not warrant interference by us in exercise of intra-
Court appeal jurisdiction.
14. In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby
dismissed."
In the present case, the report of Expert Committee dated
15.03.2017, stands against petitioners and that report has been
followed by respondents, to reject the candidature of petitioners
treating their qualification of MBA and UGC-NET in subject
Management as ineligible for the post of Assistant Professor
(Business Administration). The decision of the State and RPSC,
therefore, have concurrence with the view of learned Single Judge
expressed in case of Ity Patni (supra) and Vishnu Bawaree
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (24 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
(supra) as also observations of the Division Bench in case of
Vishnu Bawaree, and in that view of matter, respondents cannot
be directed to treat petitioners eligible, for appointment on the
post in question on the basis of qualification of MBA and thus,
candidature of petitioners has rightly been rejected as not eligible
for the post in question.
(viii) As far as reliance placed by petitioners on the report of
Equivalence Committee dated 31.10.2022 is concerned,
petitioners made a persuasive attempt to persuade the Court that
the subject of Business Administration has been decided as
allied/relevant subject by the committee as per UGC Regulations,
2018. But a perusal of the report of committee reveals that at
serial No.22 while determining the allied subjects of subject
Business Administration, only two subjects have been held to be
allied subjects (i) Business Administration and Business
Management (Commerce Stream); and (ii) Commerce. Further as
per report, the UGC NET is required in subject Commerce. Thus, it
is wholly incorrect and wrong on the part of petitioner to state that
in the Equivalence Committee report dated 31.10.2022, the
degree of MBA has been included in the allied subjects to the
subject of Business Administration. In addition to above discussion
on merits, it is noteworthy that respondents No.1 and 2 have
stated that the report of Equivalence Committee dated 31.10.2022
is not applicable to the present recruitment of 2020, as the report
cannot be held applicable and effective retrospectively. In counter
to such arguments, the contention of counsel for petitioners is that
UGC Regulations, 2018 which promulgated vide notification dated
18.07.2018 and followed by the State Government vide
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (25 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
notification dated 14.10.2022 issued by the DOP w.e.f.
18.07.2018, therefore, UGC Regulations, 2018 should be held
applicable to the present recruitment issued by the RPSC vide
advertisement dated 18.12.2020, in light of the judgment of
Division Bench in case of Mali Ram Hindala (supra). He submits
that the report of Equivalence Committee came in furtherance to
determination of the allied/relevant subjects in the concerned
subject of post graduation in view of UGC Regulations, 2018.
This Court finds that the contention of counsel for petitioner
is not acceptable and placing reliance upon the judgment of Mali
Ram Hindala (supra) is also misplaced. For the applicability of
UGC Regulations, 2018 to the present recruitment. In that
judgment, the Division Bench considered the applicability of UGC
Regulations, 2018 in respect of post of Assistant Professor
(Botany, Zoology and Physics) pursuant to present recruitment
advertisement dated 18.12.2020 and observed that the State was
bound to follow the eligibility criteria prescribed by the UGC, in the
present recruitment process, which was initiated thereafter,
however, while considering the grant of relief to petitioners, the
Division Bench has held and observed in the judgment as under:
"While permitting the petitioners to participate further
in the selection process, we would request the State
Government to form a committee of experts to
consider whether the petitioners can be stated to
have Master's Degree in concerned/relevant/allied
High subject of Botany or Zoology as the case may
be. In case of Civil Court Writ Petition
No,15064/2020, this question may also arise in
Orticia relation to subject of Physics. However, this
relief cannot be extended in favour of those
candidates who have neither applied to the RPSC nor
have approached this Court. Granting any such relief
in favour of non-petitioners would derail the entire
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (26 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
selection process undertaken by the State
Government which has reached at an advanced stage.
However, for the future, we would expect the State
Government to undertake this exercise for all subjects
so that any future selection process does not run into
similar legal controversy. The Government may also
consider amending the rules suitably."
(underline is mine)
Therefore, in light of observations made by the Division
Bench, UGC Regulations, 2018 do not apply upon petitioners.
There is another reason as well not to accept the alternative case
of petitioners, because petitioners have already applied and
participated as per the eligibility criteria prescribed in the
advertisement dated 18.12.2020, therefore, they are estopped
under law to abide by the such qualification and it is not
permissible in law for the petitioner to rely upon some additional
qualification for claiming eligibility by placing reliance on UGC
Regulations, 2018. Once petitioners failed to establish their
qualification of MBA to be eligible qualification for the post in
question in terms of advertisement dated 18.12.2020, the
alternative case that the MBA be treated as allied subject to the
Business Administration, if do not fall in the related subject cannot
be accepted. At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy to mention
here that though even as per qualification prescribed in the UGC
Regulations, 2018, petitioners have not been found eligible as the
MBA has not been determined to be the allied subject of Business
Administration for the purpose of appointment of teachers in
Colleges.
In this view, the alternative case of petitioners that in light of
the UGC Regulations, 2018, whereby the UGC Regulations, 2010
have been superseded and the minimum requirement of post
graduation in related subject has been substituted by the post
[2023:RJ-JP:29095] (27 of 27) [CW-122/2023]
graduation in related/ allied/ concerned subject, therefore, the
qualification of MBA falls in at least allied subject and accordingly,
petitioners be treated as eligible as per UGC Regulations, 2018,
has no force neither on facts nor on law.
13. The upshot of discussion and deliberations made hereinabove
is that, this Court reaches to the conclusion that on the basis of
Master's degree in Business Administration (MBA), and the UGC
NET in subject management, petitioners have rightly not been
held eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor
(Business Administration) and accordingly, the RPSC has
committed no illegality in rejecting the candidature of petitioners,
treating them ineligible for the post in question, pursuant to
advertisement dated 18.12.2020. Challenge to the report of
Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017 and to the decision of the
State under letter dated 26.05.2017 is also rejected.
14. As a result, all these writ petition fail and are hereby
dismissed. It is observed that the interim orders passed in favour
of petitioners allowing them to appear in the interview, come to an
end, with dismissal of writ petitions on merits.
15. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
