Yashpal Singh Meena S/O Shri Suraj ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5831 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:29159-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 760/2023

Surbhi Thakuriya D/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar Thakuriya, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Shiv Colony Khenedlwal Dharmshala Ke Piche,
Jaipur Road Gangapur City, Gangapur City, Sawaimadhopur,
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

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 762/2023

Yashpal Singh Meena S/o Shri Suraj Mal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Devikhera, Post Rajmahal, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk, 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

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Supriya Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y. C. Sharma

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

11/10/2023

[2023:RJ-JP:29159-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-760/2023]

1. In the present 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.

760/2023 titled as Surbhi Thakuriya 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 23.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge,

whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant, was

dismissed.

3. Concisely noted, the factual narrative of the instant appeal

dictates as under:-

3.1 That on 28.04.2022, respondent no.3-RPSC issued an

advertisement whereby applications for 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 That between 07.09.2022 to 23.09.2022, the appellant took

her final year examination of B.Ed. i.e. one of the requisite

qualification(s) for the advertisement dated 28.04.2022.

3.4 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

[2023:RJ-JP:29159-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-760/2023]

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.

3.5 In this regard, it is noted that the respondent-university

declared the result of the appellant's final year examination on

26.11.2022, whereas, the written examination of the RPSC was

conducted on 17.10.2022.

3.6 As a result, the appellant was deemed ineligible.

3.7 Thereafter, being aggrieved, the appellant approached this

Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8580/2023. 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

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 final year B. Ed. 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

[2023:RJ-JP:29159-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-760/2023]

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.

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:-

[2023:RJ-JP:29159-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-760/2023]

"17. Academic and Technical qualifications and experience:- A candidate for direct recruitment to the post specified in Scheduled-I or Scheduled-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."

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.

[2023:RJ-JP:29159-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-760/2023]

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

the appellant had appeared in the final year examination of B. Ed.,

which constituted the requisite educational qualification, however,

the appellant admittedly did not possess the requisite educational

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

to her. 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,

self- contained 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:-

"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

[2023:RJ-JP:29159-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-760/2023]

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 i.e. the written examination by the RPSC was conducted

on 17.10.2022 whereas, the final year result of the appellant was

declared by the respondent-university on 26.11.2022; 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.

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

Pooja /82,83

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)