JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. 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 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.

2. 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 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. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA)/Data Preparation &