Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Praveen Dan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:15928) on 26 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:15928]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3936/2024
Jitendra Kakar S/o Shri Narana Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Ward No. -4, Rajiv Nagar, Barmer (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3942/2024
Praveen Dan S/o Shari Bhagwan Dan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Ward No. 4, Parvati Tali, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Godara.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Bang for
Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C.
Mr. Rajesh Punia-R/3.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
26/03/2025
1. Vide this common order, both these petitions are being
decided together as common controversy is involved therein.
[2025:RJ-JD:15928] (2 of 7) [CW-3936/2024]
2. The petitioners herein, aspirants to become Physical Training
Instructors (PTI), are before this Court seeking issuance of an
appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of
mandamus for quashing the order dated 13.02.2024 (in both
petitions), vide which the petitioners' candidature was rejected for
the post in question on the ground that they acquired their B.P.Ed.
degree after the cut-off date.
3. Since the facts and grounds in both petitions are similar, for
the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from SBCWP
No.3936/2024, which are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner was an outstanding sportsman at the state
level during his school years, earning a certificate of merit from
the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for participating in an inter-
college Kabaddi competition held at Maharaja Surajmal College.
He completed his graduation from the University of Rajasthan,
Bikaner, in 2020. Subsequently, the petitioner enrolled in a two-
year professional course, B.P.Ed., at Punjab University, Patiala,
which he completed on 09.10.2023.
3.2. The controversy in this matter arises from the following
events: The respondents issued a notification on 08.07.2022
inviting applications for the post of Senior Physical Education
Teacher, allowing candidates appearing in their final year
examinations to apply. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his
application on 22.07.2022. He was later called to appear for a
written examination held on 30.04.2023, in which he participated
and was declared successful. Following this, he was invited for
document verification and counseling on 15.02.2024, as per a
letter dated 06.02.2024. However, when the petitioner approached
[2025:RJ-JD:15928] (3 of 7) [CW-3936/2024]
the respondents, his candidature was rejected on the grounds that
he acquired his B.P.Ed. degree after the cutoff date, as stated in a
rejection letter dated 13.02.2024. Consequently, the petitioner
has filed this petition.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file as well as the documents appended
therewith.
5. Trite it may sound but in the matter of selection, the cut-off
date cannot remain floating and keep shifting as per the
convenience of the candidates. Certain finality has to be given by
way of providing cut-off dates and those who are eligible prior
thereto can stake their claim in case they make into the merit.
The eligibility and merit both operate in different domains and
being ineligible, if a candidate is on the merit, cannot steal a
march over those who are equally ineligible as he is.
6. Present is a case where concededly the petitioners did not
have the educational qualification as on the cut-off date i.e. the
date of examination for the recruitment process, which was held
on 30.04.2023.
7. Accordingly, I am of the view that merely because the
petitioners' claim themselves on the merit list, they have no right
to steal a march over those candidates, who were also not having
the educational qualifications as on the cut-off date and were
rightly not allowed to participate in the selection process and/or
were appearing in the finals of their qualifying examination, but
their result was declared after the cut-off of date.
8. Granting indulgence to the petitioners at the cost of those
candidates would rather result in hostile discrimination qua those
[2025:RJ-JD:15928] (4 of 7) [CW-3936/2024]
who are not before this Court but were rightly held ineligible. Only
equals can be treated equals and not those who are unequals.
9. In this context, reliance placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner on Clause 14 of the advertisement is totally lopsided,
inasmuch as, same has to be read homogeneously with the
eligibility clause, wherein the qualifying educational credentials
have been prescribed along with the cut-off date. The eligibility
clause under the head of 'Mandatory Educational Qualification' in
the advertisement, translated in English, is reproduced as under :-
"A person who has appeared in or is about to appear for the final
year of the required educational qualification for the post will also
be eligible to apply, provided that proof of acquiring the
educational qualification must be submitted before the competitive
examination conducted by the commission."
10. The aforesaid advertisement is in consonance with the
recruitment rules, which have been framed i.e. Rajasthan
Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021. Relevant
being Rule 25 is reproduced herein-below :-
"25. Form of Application and admission to the examination.- (1)
The application shall be made in the form prescribed by the
Commission / Board/Appointing Authority, as the case may be and
obtainable from the office of the Commission / Board / Appointing
Authority, as the case may be, on payment of such fee, as the
Commission / Board or the Appointing Authority may fix, from
time to time.
(2) Before appearing in the examination, the candidate should
ensure his/her eligibility in respect of age, educational /
professional qualifications, experience etc. as provided in the
rules. Being allowed to take the examination / interview shall not
entitle the candidate to presumption of eligibility. The Commission
Board / Appointing Authority as the case may be, shall scrutinize
later on the applications of such candidates only as they find
suitable for appointment, before preparing the list under rule 28.
(3) The decision of the Commission / Board / Appointing
Authority as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for
admission to the examination shall be final."
[2025:RJ-JD:15928] (5 of 7) [CW-3936/2024]
11. A perusal of sub-rule (2) ibid, leaves no manner of doubt
that the educational qualifications have to be considered as on the
cut off date. Any subsequent eligibility, which is attained by the
candidate cannot be taken note of.
12. I may hasten to add that the relevant stand taken in the
reply, being apposite is also reproduced herein-below :-
"6. That the averments made in para no.6 of the writ petition
are not disputed insofar as they are in conformity with issuance of
the recruitment notification dated 8.7.2022 vide Annex.5 attached
to the writ petition. As regard remaining assertions, it would be
relevant to point out that relevant condition of the recruitment
notification (Annex.5) provided in clear and categoric terms that
the qualification obtained by a candidate upto the last date of
submission of online application form will only be considered and
qualification obtained after the date of competitive examination
will not be considered by the recruitment agency. It is also evident
that the competitive examination was conducted by the recruitment
agency on 30.4.2023, whereas, petitioner completed B.P.Ed.
course much thereafter on 9.10.2023. Thus, the lst date of
consideration of candidature was 30.4.2022, upto which date, a
candidate appearing in the final year examination was required to
acquire the requisite qualification as mentioned in the relevant
column of the recruitment notification. In the earlier para,
petitioner has admitted the fact that his final year B.P.Ed. result
has been declared very recently in the month of September 2023. It
is also submitted that the exactly similarly situated issue with
regard to eligibility of a candidate after expiry of submission of
application form, has been set at rest by this Hon'ble Court in
SBCWP No.9649/2017 - Suman Choudhary vs. State of Raj.&
Ors., decided on 10.8.2017. In the said writ petition also, decree of
divorce was issued much after expiry of last date of submission of
application form. After considering rival submissions, this
Hon'ble Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has been
pleased to observe as under ;-
"It is settled proposition of law that candidature and
eligibility of an incumbent is required to be decided on the
date of advertisement. Until and unless the terms of
advertisement notification permits consideration of
subsquent event into account, the same cannot be claimed
as a matter of right. The undisputed facts obtaining in the
present case are that on the date of submitting the form,
petitioner did not fall in the ambit of divorcee and as such
she cannot be considered as a candidate belonging to
'Divorcee Women Category."
The propositions laid down in the case of Suman Choudhary
(supra) have been reiterated while deciding SBCWP
[2025:RJ-JD:15928] (6 of 7) [CW-3936/2024]
No.11273/2017 - Smt. Andu Choudhary vs.State of Rajasthan &
Ors., decided on 10.10.2017. In this view of the matter, it is crystal
clear that the controversy raised by the petitioner and issues
highlighted have already been discussed in detail and decided by
this Hon'ble Court by passing reasoned and speaking orders.
Controversy involved in the instant case is also squarely
covered by a judgment dated 1.8.2016 passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.85/2015 -
M.D., AVVNL, Amer Vs. Hitesh Kumar & Anr. The applicants
cannot take any advantage of the situation, if any on the part of the
appointing / recruiting authorities in allowed the applicants to
appear in the examination. It is submitted that granting any relief
to the petitioner who approached this Hon'ble Court in such case
after extra ordinary delay would tantamount to giving a benefit to
such applicants to the prejudice of others."
13. Reference may also be had to a judgment in this regard
rendered in the case of Chhagana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1778/2022, decided on
02.03.2022, wherein it was held as under :-
"Admittedly, the petitioner on the date of written
examination i.e. 30.09.2018 was not qualified as though his result
of the fourth semester was declared, on account of back in one
paper in third semester, the course of the petitioner was still not
over. Even, till the date of document verification, the examination
of the back paper was held and consequently, his candidature was
rejected.
The submission made that for the mistake of the institution
in not holding the examination in time, the petitioner cannot be
made to suffer, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the
recruiting agency cannot be made dependent on the outcome of
the petitioner's result and / or action of the educational institution
in holding / not holding of examination, the recruiting agency is
only required to see whether the candidate in terms of the Rules is
qualified during the course of document verification. Once it is
found that as on the requisite date as per the Rules, the petitioner
is not qualified i.e. on the date of written examination, no fault can
be found in rejection of the petitioner's candidature during the
document verification.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
judgment in Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of Punjab & Anr. : 2014 SCC
OnLine P&H 2652. The said judgment has no application to the
facts of the present case as the said judgment pertains to
revaluation of answer book and in the present case, the petitioner
had a back in third semester, which examination was held after the
cut-off date.
In view of the above, no case for issuance of any direction is
made out, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed."
[2025:RJ-JD:15928] (7 of 7) [CW-3936/2024]
14. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view
expressed by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition of those candidates, who were similarly placed as the
petitioners herein.
15. In view of the aforesaid unequivocal stand, which is in
consonance with the advertisement clause read with the Rules
ibid, the petition is devoid of merit.
16. In the premise, no grounds to interfere.
17. Dismissed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
165&166-Sumit/Rmathur/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
