Recruitment processes must strictly adhere to the conditions specified in the advertisement; candidates failing to meet mandatory eligibility deadlines, even by a short margin, cannot claim relaxation unless explicitly provided for in the rules.

Order

1. Petitioner participated in the recruitment process initiated by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, AJmer vide advertisement dated 11.12.2024 for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit). As per the advertisement, the criteria for eligibility with regard to prescribed educational qualification was that even the candidate who was appearing in the final year of the requisite qualification was entitled to participate in the recruitment process; however, he/she was also required to submit proof rgarding passing the qualifying examination prior to date of competitive examination.

2. In the instant case, the petitioner was since appearing in the final year examination of B.Ed course, which is the prescribed qualifying examination for recruitment on the post of Senior Teacher, therefore, the petitioner submitted application form and she was also allowed to participate in the recruitment process.

3. Admittedly, recruitment examination pursuant to advertisement dated 11.12.2024 was conducted by the respondent-Commission on 10.09.2025 and by that date, the petitioner did not qualify her B.Ed examination. Grievance of the petitioner is that the result of B.Ed. examination has been declared two days thereafter i.e. on 12.09.2025 therefore, relaxation ought to have been provided by the respondents and candidature of the petitioner cannot be rejected in this regard.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is settled proposition of law that recruitments are conducted as per the recruitment rules and conditions of advertisement. In the instant case, condition of advertisement was in unambiguous terms that where the candidate, although appearing in final year of qualifying examination, was eligible for participating in the competitive examination, yet was required to submit proof of passing qualifying examination by the date of competitive examination. It is not disputed that the petitioner has utterly failed to produce the proof of passing qualifying examination till the date of holding of competitive examination therefore, action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner vide letter dated 25.03.2026 cannot be said to be either erroneous or illegal. Hence, there is no scope of interference in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.