The court affirmed that eligibility for public employment must be determined by the cut-off date specified in the advertisement, with no provision for relaxation.

ORDER :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. The petitioner herein, aspirant to become a Lecturer, School Education, pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.04.2022 (Annex.1) is before this Court seeking quashing of condition stipulated in the aforesaid advertisement providing for obtaining the educational qualification till the date of examination.

2. While none appears for the petitioner, my attention has been drawn to a judgment dated 23.08.2023, rendered by Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Kuldeep Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.5773/2023, the relevant whereof reads as under:-

"13. It is undisputed fact that in the advertisement dated 28.04.2022, pursuant to which petitioners have applied and participated in the direct recruitment for the post in question, there was a clear stipulation that aspiring candidate will have to possess the requisite educational qualification before the date of conducting the competitive examination by the RPSC. Admittedly, none of the petitioners could acquire the requisite eligibility qualification before the date of competitive examination of that post for that subject for which he/she applied. The cut off date to acquire the requisite eligibility qualification, as indicated in the advertisement, would apply in its full rigor, more so when same is in conformity to the statutory rules, and there is no provision to relax/extends such cut off date.

14. In this respect, the proposition of law as expounded by the Apex Court in case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54], the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a similar controversy and held as below:-

“13.The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that in absence of any cut off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing of an application shall be considered as such.

14. Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cutoff date. He was, therefore, not eligible therefor.

15. In Bhupinderpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others [(2000) 5 SCC 262], this Court moreover disapproved the prevailing practice in the State of Punjab to determine the eligibility with reference to the date of interview, inter alia, stating:-

"13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., RAJA.P. Public Se Allahabad v. Alpana the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice."

[See Jasbir Rani and Others v. State of Punjab & Another [JT 2001 (9) SC 351 (2002) 1 SCC 124].

16. Yet again in Shankar K. Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(2003) 9 SCC 519], this Court held that the following principles could be culled out from the aforementioned decisions:-

"(1) The cut-off date by reference to which the