The Supreme Court has clarified a crucial aspect of recruitment law, holding that candidates must possess the prescribed educational qualification as on the last date of application, and not at a later stage, such as the examination or interview. The ruling came in appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s decision permitting ineligible candidates to sit for the examination.
Brief Facts
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in March 2024, inviting applications for 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer. The essential qualification required candidates to hold a law degree.
The respondents, who were final-year law students at the time of applying, submitted their applications without having obtained their degrees. Although they later acquired the qualification before the preliminary examination, the RPSC issued press notes clarifying that only candidates possessing the qualification as on the last date of application would be eligible.
Aggrieved, the candidates approached the Rajasthan High Court, which allowed them to participate in the examination. The High Court reasoned that since they acquired the degree before the exam, they should not be disqualified. RPSC challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and emphasized that eligibility conditions must be strictly adhered to as per the recruitment rules and advertisement.
It noted that, “A conjoint reading of the advertisement and the governing rules makes it evident that the relevant date for determining eligibility, including educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application.”
The Bench noted that the governing service rules had consciously removed any provision allowing final-year students to apply, making the legislative intent clear. The advertisement said that a candidate must “possess” a Degree in Law.
The Court applied the legal maxim “Aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” — what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s approach that where two interpretations are possible, the one favouring the candidates ought to be preferred as it enlarges the pool of eligible candidates. The top court said, “Such an approach… cannot be invoked when the language of the advertisement admits of only one clear and unambiguous interpretation.”
It further cautioned that allowing candidates to acquire qualifications at later stages would “introduce uncertainty into the selection process and impose an unwarranted administrative burden.”
Supreme Court’s Decision
Allowing the appeals filed by RPSC, the Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment dated August 12, 2025. The Court held that candidates must possess the required qualification as on the last date of application.
Case Title: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors., 2026 Latest Caselaw 349 SC
Case Details: Civil Appeal No. 007026-007026 of 2026
Judgment Date: May 4, 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click here to read the Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/60818db936c3e94e8b1c1409/Nervousness-while-waiting-for-job-interview-/960x0.jpg?height=473&width=711&fit=bounds
