Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 734 (RAJ)

Monu Dev Jeengar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-12

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. For the reasons stated in the applications delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Writ Reviews No. 40/2018, 41/2018, 42/2018, 43/2018 and 27/2018 : Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners. 2. On 11.09.2013 an advertisement was issued inviting applications to fill up the notified vacant posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) and in the advertisement it was indicated to the candidates that the written examination would be held on 10.11.2013. It was indicated to the candidates that those who were in the final academic year of B.E./B.Tech. Civil Engineering Courses would be eligible to apply for the post in question but upon the condition that they must acquire the graduate degree by the date of the written examination which was indicated in the advertisement to be 10.11.2013. The written examination was postponed and was held on 12.01.2014. 3. The review petitioners were in the final year of their graduation course i.e. Bachelors Degree in Engineering. They applied. They took the written examination held on 12.01.2014. Their merit position was such that they would be entitled to be appointed as Junior Engineers. Appointments offered were withdrawn when it was noted that the qualification of graduation in Engineering was obtained after 12.01.2014. Writ petitions filed by the review petitioners were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 22.05.2015 in view of the settled position that if an advertisement indicates the date by which eligibility has to be acquired, the same has to be acquired by the date notified. 4. Writ appeals filed were dismissed by the Division Bench on 20.01.2016. Needless to state the reasoning of the Division Bench is the same as was the reasoning followed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Seeking review it is brought to the notice of the Court that the amendment brought by the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 1999 was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The amendment is to the effect that where a requisite educational qualification is prescribed and the selection is through the process of a written examination the educational qualification has to be obtained by the date of the written examination. 6. Now, though the rule was not cited when the Division Bench decided the appeals but the facts noted would take into account the applicability of the rule itself. 6. Now, though the rule was not cited when the Division Bench decided the appeals but the facts noted would take into account the applicability of the rule itself. The rule in question requires eligibility to be acquired on the date of the examination. This was so indicated in the advertisement and the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench proceeded on the basis that eligibility would be on the date of the written examination. 7. It is then argued that the Division Bench judgment was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. 8. The said Division Bench judgment stated not to have been cited is the Division Bench judgment dated 04.04.2016 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 127/2016 RPSC, Ajmer vs. Manju Chhaba & Ors. The said Division Bench judgment pertains to a recruitment for the post of Senior Teachers pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.08.2013. 9. At the outset we note that the said Division Bench judgment could not have been brought to the notice of the Division Bench which decided the appeals on 20.01.2016 because it is a decision of a later date. The view taken in Manju Chhaba's case by the Division Bench is that notwithstanding Manju Chhaba not having the requisite qualifications at the time she took the written examination but since the department allowed her to take the written examination it would mean that the department waived the condition of eligibility. 10. Now, the ratio laid down in the Manju Chhaba's case may be contrary to the ratio laid down in the decision dated 20.01.2016, but we find that the attention of the Division Bench which decided Manju Chhaba's case was not drawn to the Division Bench decision dated 20.01.2016; which was a binding precedent. 11. Be that as it may, the advertisement in question as also the applicable service rules requires eligibility to be acquired by the date the candidate takes the written examination. The review petitioners did not have the requisite educational qualification by the said date. 12. The review petitions are dismissed.