Honble CHAUHAN, J.– The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to respondents to treat petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Women Polytechnic.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner possesses to her credit Graduation Degree and she has also done Two Years Diploma Course from Government Girls Polytechnical College, Lucknow (U.P.) under the Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh. She has been working as a Technician with respondent No. 1 since 1991. Respondent No.2 Commission issued an advertisement dated 20.1.97 (Annexure.1) for twelve vacancies on the post of Lecturer in Costumes, Design and Dress-making in Women Polytechnic. The req- uisite qualifications for the same, as required by the advertisement, have been that the candidate must possess the second class Degree in graduation from any recognised University and Three Years Diploma Course from any Board of Technical Education in Costumes, Design and Dress- making. In response to the said advertisement dated 20.1.97, petitioner applied and her candidature was rejected by the Commission vide order dated 5.6.97 as she had not done Three Years Diploma Course. Hence this writ petition.

(3). The services on the said posts are being governed by the Rajasthan Technical Education Service Rules, 1973 (for short,``the Rules) Petitioner approached this Court mentioning clearly that the relevant rule providing for eligibility reads as under:-

`For the post of Lecturer, the method of recruitment is 100% by direct recruitment. The minimum qualification for direct recruitment prescribed therein is Second Class Degree in appropriate branch/ faculty of a University established by law in India or qualifications recognised as equivalent there to by the Government, or Second Class Degree in Arts/ Science / Commerce of a University established by law in India with three years second class diploma:

Remark : However, in branch/ faculty, where three years Diploma is not awarded, two years Diploma could be considered.

(4). This Court considering the issue of eligibility as a debatable one, as the remark mentioned therein provided that two years Diploma could also be considered, passed an interim order to respondent No. 2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner provisionally. Respondents have filed replies wherein respondent No.2 has made allegations against the petitioner that she had suppressed the mate- rial facts. The said Rules stood amended in 1996 and had been issued strictly in consonance with the amended Rules, meaning there by that after the amendment in 1996, the remarks had been taken away/ deleted and it was provided that the qualification shall be a Graduation Degree and Three Years Diploma Course. Thus, petitioner has suppressed the material fact. It has further been submitted on behalf of respondents that petitioner had knowingly and purposely suppressed the fact regarding amendment in the Rules, otherwise she would have stated atleast in the rejoinder affidavit that she was not aware of the amendment but in that eventuality she ought to have taken a ground that the advertisement dated 20.10.97 was not in consonance with the statutory rules. Moreover, respondents have pointed out letter dated 9.4.1995 (Annexure. R..1/1) submitted by petitioner herself before the Authority, according to which petitioner had stated that she was not eligible. Thus, petitioner cannot agitate that she remained unaware of the amendment.

(5). It is settled proposition of law that a candidate seeking appointment must be eligible as per the currently prescribed qualification. Petitioner cannot say that at one point of time prior to amendment of Rules, her case had been considered and, therefore, even today the respondents are bound to treat her eligible. The Honble Supreme Court, in Union of India & Anr. vs. Yogendra Singh (1), has held that in case of direct recruitment, an applicant must possess the requisite qualification

Click Here to Read the rest of this document