Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1461 (RAJ)

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-03

DINESH MAHESHWARI, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This writ petition on behalf of six petitioners has been filed for a direction to consider their cases for the forthcoming Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2005, likely to be held in May, 2006. They also seek quashing of the eligibility condition in Clause 5 of the advertisement notice to the effect that a candidate shall not be eligible for recruitment to the service unless he is law graduate, to the extent that the candidates possessing the qualification upto July, 2006 may be declared as eligible. 2. The petitioners are final year students of the LL.B. Course scheduled to appear at the final examination commencing from 21.03.2006 and likely to be over by the last week of April, 2006. On 111.2005 advertisement was published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission inviting applications for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2005, to be submitted by 09.01.2006. According to the petitioners the examination is likely to be held in the months of May/June 2006, but till date call letters have not been dispatched to them and they apprehend that as they are not law graduates, they may be allowed to appear at the examination. The petitioners contend that in competitive examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and even by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service, final year students are provisionally allowed to take the examination subject to their passing the qualifying examination. 3. Clause 5 of the advertisement notice lays down the eligibility of the candidate which is in accord with Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service, 1955 (in short, the Rules) which runs as under:-“11. Qualification.-(1) No candidate shall be eligible for recruitment to the service unless- (a) heis a Bachelor of Laws (Two years Course under the old scheme) or Bachelor of Laws (Professional) of any University established by Law in India and recognised for the purpose by the Governor or a Barrister of England or Northern Ireland or a member of the faculty of Advocates in Scotland; and (b) ................. .......................... .................. .................” 4. The rule does not mention the cut off date on which the candidate should possess the requisite qualification. .......................... .................. .................” 4. The rule does not mention the cut off date on which the candidate should possess the requisite qualification. As regards age, it may be mentioned, Rule 10 lays down that a candidate for recruitment to the service must not have attained the age of 35 years “on the first day of January next following the date of commencement of the examination”, but there is no such specific provision as regards the academic qualification. The point for consideration is whether in the absence of rule a candidate who does not possess the requisite qualification on the date of advertisement or the last date of submission of application can be considered eligible? 5. In U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad & Anr. vs. Alpana, 1994 (2) SCC 723 , the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission had issued advertisement inviting applications for competitive examination for recruitment to the State Judicial Service. The last date for receipt of applications was 20.08.1988. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the candidates had to possess LL.B. Degreeon the last date of receipt of applications. The advertisement also mentioned that an attested copy of the Degree should be attached with the application. The respondent submitted application stating that she had appeared in the LL.B Degree examination and was awaiting result, which was declared in October, 1988. The Commission allowed her to appear in the written examination from 3rd to 05.05.1990 which she successfully passed. However, she was not called for interview on the ground that she had not passed the law degree examination on the last date fixed for submission of applications. On the intervention of the High Court, however she was interviewed but her result was withheld. Later, the High Court directed the Commission to declare her result and if she was successful, forward her name to the State Government for appointment. Disapproving the order of the High Court the Supreme Court observed as under:- “The facts of this case reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of applications was 20.10.1988. No rule or practice is shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of her application. The Public Service Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview............. No rule or practice is shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of her application. The Public Service Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview............. there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview her in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf .” The Court observed that if candidates who are not eligible to appear at the examination are allowed to participate it may result in denial of opportunity to superior candidates who may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date. To quote their Lordships:-“We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied, as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time.” 6. A some what similar contention was raised in Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 168, that the required qualification of the candidate should be examined with reference to date of selection and not with reference to the last date of application. The contention was rejected in these words:- “The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain further date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications.” 7. Reference may also be made to District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655 , wherein as per the condition of advertisement, the candidate was required to possess Second Class Post Graduate Degree but the respondent having Third Class Degree was inadvertently selected and appointed without scrutinsing copies of the certificates. The order of appointment was subject to production of original certificates. Subsequently, on scrutiny of original certificates the respondent was found to be short of qualification and as such was not allowed to join. The action of the authorities was found to be proper. It was held:- “When an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The action of the authorities was found to be proper. It was held:- “When an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications then the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.” 8. A similar question arose in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. vs. B. Sarat Chandra & Anr., 1990 (2) SCC 669 , in the context of eligibility as to age. Rule 5 of the relevant rules provided that no person shall be eligible for appointment unless he has completed the age of 21 years and not completed the age of 26 years on the first day of July of the year in which the selection is made. The respondent who was short of age by 19 days challenged the advertisement notice contending that the date under Rule 5 should be the date of preparation of the list of selected candidates and not any date anterior to it. A question arose as to the meaning of selection in Rule 5 as to whether the eligibility should be reckoned with reference to date of final selection or the last date of application. Dealing with the question, the Supreme Court observed:- “If the word selection is understood in a sense meaning thereby only the final act of selecting candidates with preparation of the list for appointment, then the conclusion of the Tribunal may not be unjustified. But round phrases cannot give square answers. Before accepting that meaning, we must see the consequences, anomalies and uncertainties that it may lead to. The Tribunal in fact does not dispute that the process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. Indeed, it consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment...................... When such are the different steps in the process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. When such are the different steps in the process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific, and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency of scrutinise applications.” 9. Reference may also be made to Dr. Ami Lal Bhatt vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1997 (6) SCC 614 . 10. Adverting to the instant case, as per Rule 11 of the Rules quoted hereinabove, the candidate must possess the requisite qualification for being considered for recruitment to the service which means in plain words that he must have the qualification as on the date of the application. The note appended to Clause 5 of the advertisement notice made it abundantly clear that the candidate must be possessed of the requisite qualification by the last date of receipt of the applications in the Commission. In the absence of any specific provision in the rules to the contrary, it was open to the Commission to provide the cut off date in the matter of possessing of the requisite qualification, and fixing the last date of receipt of application cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The relevant clause is in accord with the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above. 11. Before we part, we may mention that the petitioners who are aged between 20-22 years, will get opportunity to participate in the next recruitment process and show their mettle for recruitment to the service. In the above premises, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.