Surendra Kumar S/O Shri Ram Singh ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5543 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 747/2023

Monika D/o Sh. Surendra Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near
Temple, Village Niwai, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education
         Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
         Ajmer
4.       The Controller Of Examination, University Of Kota, Kota.
                                                                    ----Respondents

Connected with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 748/2023

Rubiya Parveen D/o Sh. Zakir Hussain, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Jama Masjid Ke Pass, Jahazpur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

4. The Controller Of Examination, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 749/2023

Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Shish Pal Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gram Pipli, Sikar, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

4. The Controller Of Examination, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota.

5. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo- Jhariya, Churu, Rajasthan

[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 750/2023

Sarwan Ram S/o Shri Puna Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dukiyon Ki Dhani, Vpo Firod, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

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

4. The Controller Of Examination, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 751/2023

Hemlata Jaju D/o Shri Vishnu Narayan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Kurada, Tehsil Parbhatsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

4. The Controller Of Examination, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 752/2023

Omprakash Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Palthana, Tehsil Dhod, Palthana, Sikar, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

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

4. The Controller Of Examination, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota.

----Respondents

[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 753/2023

Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Singh Jatav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Laddu Khawas Ki Bagichi, Nai Basti, Po Delhi Gate, Alwar, Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

4. The Controller Of Examination, Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Supriya Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y. C. Sharma in SAW No. 748/2023, 750/2023 and 752/2023

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 05/10/2023 ORAL

1. In the present bunch of appeals, the scope of the

controversy involved is identical. Therefore, with the consent of

learned counsel for both the sides, the appeals are being taken up

for final disposal jointly. For procedural efficacy, D.B. Special

Appeal (Writ) No. 747/2023 titled as Monika vs. State of

Rajasthan, is being taken up as the lead file.

2. By way of the instant appeal, a challenge is made to the

order impugned dated 23.08.2023, passed by the learned Single

Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant, was

dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]

3. In order to shed light on the controversy involved, the

factual narrative of the instant appeal is briefly taken note of

herein-under:

3.1 On 28.04.2022, the respondent no.3-RPSC issued an

advertisement whereby applications for recruitment on the post of

Lecturer-School Education were invited.

3.2 In the said advertisement, a stipulation was incorporated

which enabled students in their final year of pursuing the requisite

qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement, to apply for the

said recruitment, subject to producing/possessing the said

requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e. the date of holding

the written competitive examination.

3.3 However, despite appearing in the final university

examinations on the date so fixed, on account of delay/negligence

in declaring the result of the requisite qualification on part of the

respondent no.4-University, the appellant failed to

possess/produce the requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e.

date on which the written examination was conducted by the

respondent no.3-RPSC.

3.4 As a result, the appellant was deemed ineligible.

3.5 Thereafter, being aggrieved, the appellant approached this

Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9585/2023. However,

the same came to be dismissed by way of the order impugned

dated 23.08.2023.

4. In this background, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the order impugned is passed in contravention of

the settled position of law and without taking the material aspects

into consideration. Therefore, the same deserves to be quashed

[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]

and set aside. To elaborate on the said claim, it was averred that

despite possessing the requisite qualification as on date, the

appellant, on account of delay and negligence on part of the

respondent-university, could not produce the requisite qualification

on the cut-off date i.e. the date of holding the written competitive

examination. As a result, the appellant was deemed ineligible.

Learned counsel argued that as no fault qua the delay/negligence

on part of the respondent-university where the appellant was

pursuing her M.A. English Course, is attributable to the appellant,

the delay/negligence caused by a third-party in declaring the

result of the examination, should not barge on the right of the

appellant for consideration on recruitment on the concerned post

so advertised. Therefore, relying upon the submissions made

herein-above, it was conclusively submitted that stipulations qua

eligibility are procedural requirements and the delay in declaration

of the result was not attributable to the appellant. Reliance was

also placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as

enunciated in Kumari Laxmi Saroj vs. State of U.P. reported in

2022 17 SCR 696.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that order impugned dated 23.08.2023 is a well-

reasoned speaking order wherein after due consideration of

material aspects, the learned Single Judge has arrived at a logical

conclusion. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, no interference with the order impugned is

warranted.

[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]

6. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both

the sides, scanned the record of the appeal and perused the

judgment cited at Bar.

7. Concisely noted, the issue under consideration pertains to

the appellant not possessing the requisite educational qualification

for the post of Lecturer-School Education up to the cut-off date, as

fixed by the respondent no.3-RPSC i.e. the date of holding the

written competitive examination.

8. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the present

appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant

statutory provision, in conformity with which, the advertisement

dated 28.04.2022 was issued by the respondent no.3-RPSC. Rule

17 of the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service

Rules, 2021 is reproduced herein-under:-

"kS{kf.kd vgZrk lac/a kh izko/kku%& ßiB dh visf{kr "kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre o o'kZ esa lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk ls iwoZ "kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxkAÞ

9. As per Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021, a person who is

appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the

requisite educational qualification for the post as advertised, is

also eligible to fill the form for recruitment, provided that on the

cut-off date, which is prescribed as the date on which the written

examination is conducted, the incumbent shall have to submit

proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, though

the appellant had appeared in the final year examination of M.A.

English, which constituted the requisite educational qualification,

[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]

however, the appellant admittedly did not possess the requisite

educational qualification on the cut-off date, albeit due to no fault

attributable to her. In this regard, it is noted that the appellant

appeared in the final year examinations on 14.07.2022 to

16.07.2022, whereas, the examination conducted by the

respondent-RPSC was on 11.10.2022 and 14.10.2022, and the

result of the final year examination was declared on 10.11.2022

i.e. pursuant to the cut-off date. Having said so, this Court while

exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot issue any directions which are

dehors the statutory rules, which provide for

possession/submission of proof of having acquired the requisite

educational qualification on the cut-off date i.e. date of written

examination. Therefore, the argument of the appellant qua the

delay and/or negligence on part of a third-party precluding the

appellant from acquiring the educational qualification before the

cut-off date, gets negated by the strict and self-explanatory

statutory rules framed in connection with the advertisement so

issued.

11. The reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Kumari Laxmi Saroj (Supra) by the appellant is

misplaced and distinguishable, the same having been delivered in

a distinguishable nature of facts, whereas in the present case, the

statutory rules bind the compliance of the requisites before the

cut-off date.

12. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra

reported in (2017) 11 SCC 521, while dealing with an identical

controversy, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

[2023:RJ-JP:28083-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-747/2023]

"The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possesses the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post."

13. Therefore, considering the fact that the advertisement dated

28.04.2022 was issued in conformity with Rule 17 of the Rules of

2021; that it is an admitted position that the appellant did not

possess the requisite educational qualification on or before the

cut-off date, as prescribed in consonance with Rule 17 of the Rules

of 2021; that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot

issue any directions which are dehors the statutory rules, which

provide for possession/submission of proof of having acquired the

requisite educational qualification on the cut-off date i.e. date of

written examination and relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble

Apex Court as enunciated in Vijay Kumar Mishra (Supra), this

Court is inclined to dismiss the present appeal.

14. As a result, the instant appeals are dismissed. Pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

15. A copy of the order be placed in each of the file.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

Pooja /9-15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)