Judgment :

1. The delay in filing SLP(C) CC Nos.13191 and 13504-13506 of 2011 is condoned.

2. The questions which arise for consideration in these petitions are whether the qualifications prescribed in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short, “the Rules”) for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector are mandatory and whether the petitioners, who were appointed as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors in compliance of the direction given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court are entitled to continue in service despite reversal of the order of the learned Single judge by the Division Bench.

3. In response to advertisement dated 1.10.2001 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, “the Commission”), the petitioners applied for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors. The last date fixed for submission of the application was 19.11.2001. Although as on that date, none of the petitioners possessed driving licence authorising them to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles, all of them were provisionally allowed to take part in the written examination and the interview and their names were included in the select list prepared by the Commission. However, after final scrutiny of the papers the Commission cancelled the tentative selection of the petitioners on the ground that as on the last date fixed for submission of the application, they did not possess the required driving licence.

4. The writ petitionsfiled by the petitioners questioning the cancellation of their selection were allowed by the learned Single Judge, who referred to the qualifications specified in paragraph 13 of the advertisement and held that when the requirement of the educational qualifications could be relaxed, there was no justification to deny appointment to the petitioners on the ground that they did not have the required driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application.

5. The special appeals filed by the Commission were admitted by the Division Bench of the High Court but its prayer for interim stay was rejected with an observation that if any appointment is made, the same will be subject to the decision of the appeal. For the sake of reference, the relevant portions of order dated 26.10.2004 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.494 of 2004 are extracted below:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application also.Considering the submissions, no case is made out for stay. Consequently, the stay application stands rejected. However, it is also made clear that if any appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector is made, that will be subject to the decision of this appeal. List the appeal itself for hearing in the month of December, 2004, as prayed for.”

6. When the special appeals were taken up for hearing, the Division Bench noticed that in R.P.S.C. v. Shri Manish Thakur another Division Bench had adversely commented upon the order of the learned Single Judge and referred the matter to the larger Bench for deciding the following question:

“Whether as per the educational qualifications mentioned in clause 13 of the advertisement, the driving licence and experience should be possessed by the candidate on the last date of filing the application or on or before the date of interview?”

7. The Full Bench of the High Court referred to the relevant provisions of the Rules, the judgments of this Court in U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P. v. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723, Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 and held:

“.....................In reference to aforesaid legal position, if rules and advertisement are looked into, then it becomes clear that so far as required educational eligibility is concerned, a candidate appearing in last year examination or has already appeared, can apply for selection, subject to possessing educational certificates on or before the date of intervie