Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamlesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 20 March, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2416 / 2017
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Kailash Chand Balai, Aged About 23
Years, By Caste Balai, R/o Village Sarotha, Tehsil- Bhim, District-
Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand
(Rajasthan)
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sudhir Saruparia, Advocate
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Reportable Order
20/03/2017
The petitioner herein is praying for grant of appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in pursuance to the L.D.C. competitive Examination 2013.
The candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled being ineligible on account of the fact that he did not possess the computer qualification on the date of the issuance of the advertisement dated 14.02.2013.
It is a well settled proposition of law that a candidate must possess the requisite educational qualification by the cut off date. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007)4 SCC 54, went to the extent of holding that in the absence of any cut off date specified in (2 of 4) [CW-2416/2017] advertisement or in rules, last date for filing of application shall be considered as the cut off date while replying on the judgment rendered in the case of Shankar K. Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2003)3 SCR 796 wherein the following principles were culled out:-
"(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 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."
Relying on the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court, the Court went on to hold in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) as under:-
"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."
The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors., Vs. Chander Shekhar and Anr., reported in (1997) ILLJ 1160 SC while dealing with the question held as under:-
"The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing (3 of 4) [CW-2416/2017] the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview."
Coming back to the case in hand, the petitioner was required to have the Senior Secondary Examination and RS-CIT certificate by 14th February, 2013, which was the last date of the filing of application form. The petitioner did not have the requisite qualification on the said date. The certificate of the requisite qualification was issued on 7 th September, 2013 i.e. much after the cut off date. The argument that the process of selection was going cannot be sustained. In case, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it would prejudice and amount to discriminating against all those candidates who did not apply in (4 of 4) [CW-2416/2017] pursuance to the said advertisement knowing that they will not be able to acquire the certificate of the requisite qualification uptil the last date of the examination.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
NK/67