Compliance with statutory rules, such as Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021, is crucial for determining eligibility for recruitment, and delays caused by third parties do not exempt individuals from this requirement.

ORDER :

1. In the present appeals, the scope of the controversy involved is identical. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the appeals are being taken up for final disposal jointly. For procedural efficacy, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 772/2023 titled as Kiran Kalwar and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, is being taken up as the lead file.

2. By way of the instant appeal, a challenge is made to the order impugned 23.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant, was dismissed.

3. Concisely noted, the factual narrative of the instant appeal dictates as under:-

3.1 That on 28.04.2022, respondent no.3-RPSC issued an advertisement whereby applications for the post of Lecturer-School Education were invited.

3.2 In the said advertisement, a stipulation was incorporated which enabled students in their final year of pursuing the requisite qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement, to apply for the said recruitment, subject to producing/possessing the said requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e. the date of holding the written competitive examination.

3.3 That between September 2022 to October 2022, the appellant took her final year examination of B.Ed. i.e. one of the requisite qualification(s) for the advertisement dated 28.04.2022.

3.4 However, despite appearing in the final university examinations on the date so fixed, on account of delay/negligence in declaring the result of the requisite qualification on part of the respondent no.4-University, the appellant failed to possess/produce the requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e. date on which the written examination was conducted by the respondent no.3-RPSC.

3.5 In this regard, it is noted that the respondent-university declared the result of the appellant’s final year examination on 08.12.2022, whereas, the written examination of the RPSC was conducted on 15.10.2022 and 16.10.2022.

3.6 As a result, the appellant was deemed ineligible.

3.7 Thereafter, being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5773/2023. However, the same came to be dismissed by way of the order impugned dated 23.08.2023.

4. In this background, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order impugned is passed in contravention of the settled position of law and without taking the material aspects into consideration. Therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. To elaborate on the said claim, it was averred that despite possessing the requisite qualification as on date, the appellant, on account of delay and negligence on part of the respondent-university, could not produce the requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e. the date of holding the written competitive examination. As a result, the appellant was deemed ineligible. Learned counsel argued that as no fault qua the delay/negligence on part of the respondent-university where the appellant was pursuing her final year B. Ed. Course, is attributable to the appellant, the delay/negligence caused by a third-party in declaring the result of the examination, should not barge on the right of the appellant for consideration on recruitment on the concerned post so advertised. Therefore, relying upon the submissions made herein-above, it was conclusively submitted that stipulations qua eligibility are procedural requirements and the delay in declaration of the result was not attributable to the appellant. Reliance was also placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Kumari Laxmi Saroj vs. State of U.P. reported in 2022 17 SCR 696.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that order impugned dated 23.08.2023 is a well-reasoned speaking order wherein after due consideration of material aspects, the learned Single Judge has arrived at a logical conclusion. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference with the order impugned is