Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12447) on 4 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:12447]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10864/2023
Sanjay Kumar S/o Magha Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Meghwalo Ka Bas, Sonana, Sarangwas, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education
Department, Secretariate, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
4. The Deputy Registrar, (Exams) Mohan Lal Sukhadiya
University, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi, through VC
with Mr. Vikram Singh
Mr. Vaibhav Bang for
Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral 04/03/2025
1. The petitioner herein, aspirant to become a Lecturer, School Education, pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.04.2022 (Annex.1) is before this Court seeking quashing of condition stipulated in the aforesaid advertisement providing for obtaining the educational qualification till the date of examination.
2. While none appears for the petitioner, my attention has been drawn to a judgment dated 23.08.2023, rendered by Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Kuldeep Singh & Anr. Vs. (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:54:34 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12447] (2 of 7) [CW-10864/2023] The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.5773/2023, the relevant whereof reads as under:-
"13. It is undisputed fact that in the advertisement dated 28.04.2022, pursuant to which petitioners have applied and participated in the direct recruitment for the post in question, there was a clear stipulation that aspiring candidate will have to possess the requisite educational qualification before the date of conducting the competitive examination by the RPSC. Admittedly, none of the petitioners could acquire the requisite eligibility qualification before the date of competitive examination of that post for that subject for which he/she applied. The cut off date to acquire the requisite eligibility qualification, as indicated in the advertisement, would apply in its full rigor, more so when same is in conformity to the statutory rules, and there is no provision to relax/extends such cut off date.
14. In this respect, the proposition of law as expounded by the Apex Court in case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54], the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a similar controversy and held as below:-
"13.The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that in absence of any cut off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing of an application shall be considered as such.
14. Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cutoff date. He was, therefore, not eligible therefor.
15. In Bhupinderpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others [(2000) 5 SCC 262], this Court moreover disapproved the prevailing practice in the State of Punjab to determine the eligibility with reference to the date of interview, inter alia, stating:-
"13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., RAJA.P. Public Se Allahabad v. Alpana the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:54:34 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12447] (3 of 7) [CW-10864/2023] advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice."
[See Jasbir Rani and Others v. State of Punjab & Another [JT 2001 (9) SC 351 (2002) 1 SCC 124].
16. Yet again in Shankar K. Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(2003) 9 SCC 519], this Court held that the following principles could be culled out from the aforementioned decisions:-
"(1) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules.
(2) If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose of in the advertisement calling for applications.
(3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority."
17. In M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others [(2003) 7 SCC 517], a contention was made that Ashok Kumar-II (supra) was to operative prospectively or not. The said contention was rejected, stating:
"It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective overruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs. That being the position, the High Court was in error by holding that the judgment which operated on the date of selection was operative and not the review judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma case No. II. All the more so when the subsequent (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:54:34 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12447] (4 of 7) [CW-10864/2023] judgment is by way of review of the first judgment in which case there are no judgments at all and the subsequent judgment rendered on review petitions is the one and only judgment rendered, effectively and for all purposes, the earlier decision having been erased by countenancing the review applications. The impugned judgments of the High Court are, therefore, set aside.
18. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application."
15. The aforesaid proposition of law has recently been followed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in case of Ramesh Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan:D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.227/2021 and connected appeal, vide judgment dated 18.01.2022 delivered by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. The candidature of writ petitioners for direct recruitment on the post of School Lecturer pursuant to the notification dated 29.03.2018 was rejected by the RPSC on account of not acquiring the requisite qualification before the date of holding the written competitive examination. Writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge and the judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench placing reliance upon the proposition of law as expounded by the Apex Court in case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra).
16. It would not be out of place to make a reference of the judgment of Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra reported in (2017) 11 SCC 521 which also through light on the clinching issue involved herein. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"6. 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 possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:54:34 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12447] (5 of 7) [CW-10864/2023] appointed to the post. Therefore, the so-called confession made by the officer in the Court that persons having lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside."
17. In the light of the afore-referred proposition of law, petitioners are not entitled to claim a right of consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturer- School Education in subject concern on merits, once it is undisputed fact that they could not acquire the requisite eductional qualification upto the cut off date i.e. holding the written competitive examination for the post in question by the RPSC.
18. As far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Laxmi Saroj (supra) placing reliance on its previous judgment in case of Narendra Singh (supra) whereupon learned counsel for petitioners have vehemently placed reliance is concerned, both judgments were delivered in entirely different context and facts, which are not similar to the case of present writ petitioners. In case of Narendra Singh (supra), petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the State of Haryana, while he was working as JVT Teacher at Government Primary School, Haryana. As per terms of the advertisement, writ petitioner was required to submit No Objection Certificate (NOC) of its appointing authority, at the time of interview for the advertised post. Petitioner had a pplied for issuance of NOC in time but there was delay on the part of Government in issuing the NOC, despite interim order passed by the High Court and further when the petitioner was selected on merits for the advertised post of Assistant Professor, he was allowed to join, without production of NOC. Later on his appointment was cancelled, although prior to that NOC has been issued, therefore, in such backdrop of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed respondents to grant appointment to writ petitioner and observed in para No.20 thus:-
"20. Once it is found that there was no lapse and/or delay on the part of the appellant and/or there was no fault of the appellant in not producing the NOC at the relevant time and when it was produced immediately on receipt of the same and that too before the appointments were made and when it is found that the last candidate, who is appointed i.e. Respondent 4 herein is having less marks than the appellant and thus the appellant is a more meritorious candidate than the last candidate appointed i.e. Respondent 4, to deny him (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:54:34 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12447] (6 of 7) [CW-10864/2023] the appointment is not justifiable at all. He cannot be punished for no fault of him. Both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench' of the High Court have committed grave error in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it and in not directing the respondents to appoint the appellant though he is found to be more meritorious candidate than the last candidate appointed i.e. Respondent
4."
The aforesaid proposition of law was followed in case of Laxmi Saroj (supra), where writ petitioner was essentially required registration with the U.P. Council upto the last date of submission of application form pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Health Worker (Female), apart from the requisite educational qualification. The writ petitioners were in possession of the requisite educational qualification and were registered with M.P. Council. They have applied for registration before the U.P. Council and in the process of registration, M.P. Council furnished NOC, however U.P. Council took time to issue the registration certificate and later on registration certificate was issued after the date of submission on application form. Therefore, in that process of issuing registration certificate by the U.P. Council, petitioner was not found at fault and following the proposition of law is expounded in case of Narendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and directed respondents to appoint the appellant on the post of Health Worker (Female) who was already in possession of the requisite educational qualification. Both judgments have been delivered in altogether different nature of facts, therefore, do not provide any help to writ petitioners, who have undisputedly failed to acquire the requisite educational qualification for the post in question before conducting of written competitive examination by the RPSC.
19. The upshot of above discussions and reasonings made hereinabov is that writ petitioners may not be treated as eligible for want of not acquiring the requisite educational qualification before or upto the cut off, date as fixed by the RPSC, in advertisement itself for consideration of their candidature on merits for the post of Lecturer-School Education in respective subject pursuant to advertisement dated 28.04.2022."
3. In light of the above, since the controversy involved herein has already been put to rest by the judgment, ibid, which, it transpires, has attained finality, since an intra-court appeal, filed against the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 05.10.2023.
(Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:54:34 PM)[2025:RJ-JD:12447] (7 of 7) [CW-10864/2023]
4. The petitioner is before this Court primarily on the ground that he be given the benefit of his qualification of B.Ed., which was acquired after the cut-off date owing to the circumstances beyond his control. The cut-off date as per the advertisement was slated as 28.04.2022, which is the date of advertisement itself.
5. In the premise, the writ petition stands dismissed.
6. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J 16-SP/skm/-
(Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:54:34 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)