SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2230

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Shivangi Pathak D/o Tej Prakash Pathak - Appellant
Versus
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman, Ajmer. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20295/2024
Decided On : 15-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pravin Vyas Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria Mr. Laxman Singh Jodha
For the Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Bhati Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati – AGC Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit - RPSC

Eligibility criteria in recruitment must adhere to the original guidelines allowing final-year candidates to participate, ensuring clarity and fairness in selection processes.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 - Permitting final-year candidates to apply for recruitment - Eligibility criteria stipulated in advertisement and guidelines - Candidates permitted to acquire degree by examination date, leads to entitlement - No ambiguity in advertisement for eligibility; press notes contradict this provision - Previous guidelines establish that final-year students eligible for application. (Paras 1, 6, 24)

(B) Recruitment Law - Clarity and fairness in determining eligibility cut-off dates - RPSC's changing stance does not adhere to advertised guidelines - Denial of eligibility based on contradictory corrigenda fails principles of natural justice. (Paras 11, 24)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, final-year law graduates, sought to participate in the selection process for Assistant Prosecution Officer, having completed degrees prior to the examination - Initial acceptance of their applications was disputed based on a new interpretation on eligibility, asserted by RPSC.

Findings of Court:
Court found RPSC acted inconsistently and ambiguously regarding eligibility criteria, affirming that candidates who completed their degree before examination date are indeed eligible.

Issues: Whether press notes issued by RPSC created ambiguity in eligibility requirements, and the implications of those notes on the petitioners’ rights to participate in the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted candidates who were in their final year were permitted to apply as per the original guidelines, emphasizing that ambiguity should not be exploited to deny eligible candidates their rights. Hence, changes made mid-process were deemed invalid.

Result: Petitions allowed; petitioners to be issued admit cards for the examination.

Table of Content
1. petitioners qualified as law graduates. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. opposition to petition based on eligibility criteria. (Para 4)
3. court's assessment of recruitment guidelines' ambiguity. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. supreme court ruling on cut-off dates is impactful. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. court upholds candidates' eligibility based on prior qualifications. (Para 23)
6. court directs admit cards issuance to eligible candidates. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. The petitioners, recent law graduates, are before this Court seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents to permit their participation in the selection process for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO), a recruitment exercise qua which is being conducted after a decade-long hiatus. Their online applications were provisionally accepted on the condition that they obtain their law degrees by the date of the preliminary examination, scheduled for 19.01. 2025. In the interim period between submitting their applications and the preliminary examination, the petitioners have successfully completed their law degrees. However, at the time of submitting their applications, they were still students awaiting their final law examinations.

2. Vide this common judgment, above detailed/numbered bunch of eight petitions are being decided together as similar facts and issues are involved therein. For the sake of brevity, facts and recitals are being taken from the earliest of the writ petition bearing number S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20295/2024.

3. Relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, for the purpose of adjudication of controversy herein are that on 07.03.2024 Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short ‘RPSC’) issued an advertisement for 181 post of Assistant Prosecution Officer (for short ‘APO’). Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner submitted her online application form on 18.03.2024. In the education qualification column, she indicated that her under graduation (LL.B.) result is awaited.

3.1. On 19.11.2024, the RPSC issued a press note announcing that the preliminary examination for the post of APO would be held on 19.01.2025. The note clarified that if candidates wish to make any changes in their online application forms, they could do so between 20.11.2024 to 26.11.2024, by paying a fee of Rs.500/-. It was also clarified that the candidates who do not have the required prescribed qualification/experience for the aforesaid post, may withdraw their online application during this period. Failure to do so would result in disqualification from future examinations and possible prosecution under Section 217 BNS .

3.2. On 29.11.2024, another press note was issued by the RPSC, stating that under the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 there is no provision to allow those candidates to participate in selection process, who are appearing in the final year of prescribed educational qualification or those who have not yet acquired the required qualification by the date of the selection examination.

3.3. The press note further clarified that, in the sequence of the said recruitment notification, only those candidates who have acquired the required educational qualification by the last date of application will be considered eligible for this recruitment. Therefore, candidates, who do not have the educational qualification by the last date of application, are required to withdraw their online application form between 30.11.2024 to 09.12.2024 at 12:00 PM. After this deadline, the link will automatically become inactive. Petitioner, as on the last date of online application did not have the LL.B. degree as she was yet to appear in the final examination of her degree. She acquired the required qualification on 22.08.2024. Hence this petition.

4. In response to the petition, the same is being opposed essentially on the ground that in case there is any ambiguity












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top