Mandatory educational qualifications for recruitment must be assessed based on the rules and recognition status prevalent at the time of advertisement. The doctrine that no party should suffer from court delay cannot be invoked to grant relief to an inherently unqualified candidate.

JUDGMENT :

1. Matter pertains to direct recruitment on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI Grade-II) pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.09.2008 notified by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (RPSC) under the Rajasthan Education Suboridnate Service Rules, 1971.

2. Several candidates including appellant-writ petitioner applied and participated in the selection process, however, were not short listed in the final and revised merit list, despite scoring higher marks, hence, appellant filed one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2371/2013 and other candidates too filed separate petitions, which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 12.12.2013, granting liberty to appellant and others to submit a representation before the Government of Rajasthan to reconsider the qualification of appellant as requisite or equivalence of the qualification of B.P.E. (three years’ course) and B.P.Ed. (one year diploma course) for the post in question. In furtherance thereto, appellant along with other candidates submitted a joint representation accepting that he possesses the qualification of B.P.E. (Bachelor of Physical Education), three years degree course, which should be treated as equivalent to the qualification of B.P.Ed. (one year diploma course). The representation of appellant and other candidates, was dismissed by the RPSC, vide order dated 12.05.2014, based on the letter of Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, dated 04.03.2013, pointing out that the qualification of B.P.E. is not the prescribed and requisite qualification for the post of PTI Grade-II, hence, appellant is not eligible.

3. Thereafter, appellant and other candidates, who have the qualification of B.P.E., preferred writ petitions assailing the order dated 12.05.2014. The writ petitions were admitted for hearing vide order dated 21.03.2017, although no interim order was passed in favour of the writ petitioners and finally, writ petitions have been dismissed vide common judgment/ final order dated 19.03.2025.

4. Appellant, by means of instant special appeal, has assailed the judgment/ final order of learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2025 qua himself.

5. Submission of counsel for appellant is that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the premise that no interim order was passed in favour of appellant and during course of writ petition, selection process pertaining to direct recruitment for the post of PTI Grade II- 2008 has over and no vacant seats are available. His submission is that appellant has approached and availed the legal remedy by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10801/2014 within time against the order dated 12.05.2014, therefore, merely for the reason that his writ petition remained pending for consideration before the Court for years together without passing any interim order, in the meantime selection process of PTI Grade II-2008 stands over, the legitimate right of consideration of petitioner for appointment, having requisite eligibility for the post of PTI Grade-II, may not be curtailed, hence, the impugned judgment/order passed by learned Single Judge be quashed and candidature of appellant be directed to be considered on merits for appointment, treating him to possess the requisite qualification for the post of PTI Grade-II.

6. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the order of learned Single Judge so also the other documents and material available on record.

7. Firstly, coming to the merits, in respect of eligibility of appellant-writ petitioner