Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harshit Vaishnav vs The Honorable High Court Of Judicature ... on 24 January, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
(1 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
DB. Civil Writ Petition No.17925/2021
Harshit Vaishnav S/o Shri Rakesh Vaishnav, aged about 19
years, R/o Kissan Hostel Ke Pass, Merta City, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur through the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court,
Principal Seat, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
2. The Registrar (Exam), Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat
Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Nupur Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
Date of pronouncement : 24/01/2022
Order reserved on : 20/12/2021
BY THE COURT : PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.
The respondents invited applications for direct recruitment for posts of Stenographer Grade-III for the District Courts and the District Legal Services Authorities (including Permanent Lok Adalats) vide advertisement dated 18.01.2020. The petitioner claiming to be qualified in all aspects, submitted his online application in the OBC (NCL) category. One of the mandatory eligibility criteria for selection was that the applicant must have acquired the computer efficiency certificate as per clause 5 (3) of the advertisement. The petitioner claims that at the time when the advertisement was issued, he was undergoing computer course offered by the RSCIT. The result was declared on (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:03:54 PM) (2 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021] 30.10.2021 and the provisional completion certificate was issued to the petitioner on 08.11.2021. The petitioner appeared in the shorthand and the computer tests held by the respondents on 04.04.2021, and claims to have performed well. The result of the shorthand and the computer test was declared on 30.06.2021 and after interviews, final result was declared on 31.07.2021. However, subsequently, a notice dated 28.10.2021 was issued and a revised result was issued, whereafter candidates found provisionally qualified were called for fresh interviews. The petitioner was also called for the interview in pursuance of the said notice by call letter dated 30.10.2021 and he was asked to bring all his original documents for verification. However, when the petitioner appeared for the document verification/interview, he was not having the original RSCIT certificate and thus, he submitted a provisional certificate alongwith an affidavit. Nonetheless, the respondents have issued a revised final result vide notice dated 15.12.2021, wherein candidature of five candidates including the petitioner was rejected on account of not possessing the requisite computer education qualification/certificate on the last date of submission of online application forms. The petitioner is aggrieved of the notice dated 15.12.2021 (Annex.8) referred to supra and hence, he has approached this court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the impugned action.
Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the petitioner had submitted the provisional certificate issued by the RSCIT on (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:03:54 PM) (3 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021] the date of document verification and thus, his candidature ought not to have been rejected by the respondents in the manner stated above. She urged that the impugned action is per se arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner having qualified the shorthand and type test and fulfilling the required eligibility criteria is entitled to be appointed as Stenographer pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 18.01.2020 and hence, the impugned notice, to the extent that it ousts the petitioner from the selection process in question, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. In support of her contentions, Dr. Bhati relies upon this court's judgment in the case of Hukma Ram Bishnoi Vs. The State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.317/2016 decided on 15.07.2016) and urges that the impugned notice be struck down and the respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as per his merit.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the documents filed on record with the writ petition.
The selection process in question was undertaken under the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. The academic qualifications for the post of Stenographer Grade-III are laid down in Rule 10 (1)(d) of the Rules of 1986, as per which, a candidate for recruitment to the post of Stenographer Grade-III must have passed :
"O" or Higher Level Certificate Course conducted by DOEACC under control of the Department of Electronics, Government of India;
or
(Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:03:54 PM)
(4 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021]
Computer Operator & Programming Assistant
(COPA)/Data Preparation & Computer Software (DPCS) certificate organized under National/State council of Vocational Training Scheme;
or Diploma in Computer Science/ Computer Application from any university established by Law in India or from an institution recognized by the Government;
or Diploma in Computer Science & Engineering from a Polytechnic Institution recognized by the Government;
or Rajasthan State Certificate Course in Information Technology (RSCIT) Conducted by Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University, Kota under control of Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited;
or Senior Secondary School Examination with Computer Science as an optional subject;
or Any equivalent or higher qualification.
Admittedly, the petitioner was not having the said qualification on the date of notification or even on the last date of submission of the application forms.
On going through the judgment in the case of Hukma Ram Bishnoi (supra) relied upon by Dr. Bhati, it is noticeable that there was a clear stipulation in the recruitment advertisement that those who were undergoing the course were also eligible to appear, but would have to produce certificate for having passed the course at the time of Physical Efficiency Test. However, in the case at hand, the advertisement (Annex.1) clearly stipulated at clause No.(5) that a candidate "must have passed" any of the courses referred to supra. This condition of the advertisement is (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:03:54 PM) (5 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021] in tune with Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules of 1986 and hence, it cannot be termed to be illegal or arbitrary by any stretch of imagination. Apparently, thus, the judgment in the case of Hukma Ram Bishnoi (supra) is distinguishable on facts.
Our view finds strength from the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54] and Alka Ojha Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2011) 9 SCC 438]. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar, 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 cutoff 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., 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 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 (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:03:54 PM) (6 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021] 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 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 judgment is by way of review of (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:03:54 PM) (7 of 7) [CWP-17925/2021] the first judgment in which case there are nojudgments 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."
Since the petitioner was admittedly, not possessed of the requisite computer qualification certificate on the date of issuance of the recruitment notification or even on the last date for submission of the application forms, manifestly, he was not qualified/eligible to apply for the posts advertised by the respondents. Thus, we find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that he has wrongly been denied the opportunity of selection in the questioned recruitment process.
As a consequence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
No order as to costs.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:03:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)