Rajasthan High Court
Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Manish Thakur - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4742 of 2002
Decided On : July 31, 2003
It can be concluded that a candidate who does not possess requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application form, is not entitled to be considered for appointment and the suitability and eligibility has to be considered with reference to the last date of submission of application form and not on the date of interview. (Para 11)
Once the Court is satisfied that injustice has been done, then no restriction or rule can stand in the way of rendering justice exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 19)
(2). The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :
i) That the petitioner passed the Secondary Examination in the year 1990 from the Board of Secondary Examination. Thereafter the petitioner passed Senior Secondary Examination in the year 1992 from the Board of Secondary Examination. Thereafter the petitioner obtained Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the Board of Technical Education in the year 1995-96. Copies of mark- sheets of Secondary, Sr. Secondary and Diploma in Mechanical Engineering are marked as ANNEX. 1 collectively.
ii) Further case of the petitioner is that after obtaining diploma in mechanical engineering, the petitioner worked for more than one year with many workshops where repairing of Light Motor Vehicle etc. were done. Some of the certificates issued by the authorized persons of the workshops are marked as ANNEX. 2 collectively.
iii) Further case of the petitioner is that on 1.10.2001, the petitioner was issued a learning licence (Annex. 3) by the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur for driving heavy goods vehicle as well as Heavy Passenger Vehicles.
iv) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) on 30.4.2002 by the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur.
v) Further case of the petitioner is that on 31.10.2001, the respondent-Commission issued an advertisement (Annex. 5) inviting applications for appointment on 101 posts of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspectors and the last date of submitting the application form was 19.11.2001.
vi) Further case of the petitioner is that appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector is governed by the Rajasthan Transport Sub Ordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963).
vii) Further case of the petitioner is that as the petitioner was having requisite qualification and was eligible for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, the petitioner submitted his candidature for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector to the respondents and the respondents permitted the petitioner to take up the written examination with the Roll No. 100508. Petitioner appeared in the written test and was declared successful by the respondents.
viii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued an interview letter dtd. 1.11.2002 (Annex. 6) by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) directing him to appear in the interview to be held on 26.11.2002.
ix) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of interview letter dtd. 1.11.2002 (Annex. 6) issued by respondent No. 2 (Secretary Rajasthan Public Service Commission), the petitioner appeared for interview on 26.11.2002 in the office of respondent-Commission. However, after verification of the documents, the petitioners candidature was rejected vide letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) issued by the respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 19.11.2001, the petitioner was not having permanent driving licence and therefore, he was not h
4. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra (2002 AIR SCW 2608)–Followed.
6. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (AIR 1996 SC 2410)
1. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. vs. Chander Shekhar and Anr. (1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 decided
2. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. vs. Chander Shekhar and Anr. (1997 (4) SCC 18)–Followed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.