[2025:RJ-JP:19941] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8876/2018 Archana Kumari Daughter Of Shri Om Prakash, Resident of C/o Mahendra Singh Yogi, Ward No. 01, Sainik Nagar, Shri Ram Dharm Kante Ke Paas, Churu Road, Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary To Secondary School Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Raj., Through Its Secretary. 3. Assistant Secretary Examination, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Raj. 4. Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig Ms. Anjum Parveen Salawat for Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/05/2025 1. Petitioner herein was aspirant for appointment on the post of School Lecturer (Geography) against the vacancies notified by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide advertisement dated 16.10.2015 under the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970; she applied and participated in the recruitment process but vide order dated 21.03.2018 (Annex-5) issued by the RPSC, petitioner has been declared ineligible for appointment, fundamentally due to reason of not acquiring the requisite qualification of Post Graduation (M.A. (Geography) up to the date of conducting the written examination. Hence, petitioner has preferred instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, making [2025:RJ-JP:19941] (2 of 6) [CW-8876/2018] a prayer to direct the respondents to consider her candidature for appointment for the post in question on merits. 2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the terms and conditions of advertisement dated 16.10.2015 as also the other material placed on record before this Court. 3. As per the advertisement, the requisite qualification for the post in question is as under:- “vfuok;Z 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk% ¼izk/;kid&fp=dyk ds vfrfjä leLr inksa ds fy;s½%& 1- ljdkj }kjk ekU; f'k{kk Lukrd ¼ch-,M-½ vkSj lqlaxr fo"k; esa LukrdksRrj fMxzh ;k mlds lerqY; dksbZ vU; vgZrkA uksV%& ijUrq ;g fd mijksDr ;ksX;rk ds ikB~;Øe ds vfUre o"kZ dh ijh{kk tks lh/kh HkÙkhZ ds fy, fu;eksa ;k vuqlwph ;Fkk mfYyf[kr visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk gS esa lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr in ds fy, vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kk dh fnukad ls iwoZ 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk] vU;Fkk vkosnd vik= ekuk tkosxkA Li"Vhdj.k%& ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr lqfo/kk dk os gh vH;FkhZ miHkksx dj ldsaxs tks vkosnd vkosnu&i= izkfIr dh vfUre fnukad rd in dh okafNr ;ksX;rk dh ijh{kk ds vfUre o"kZ esa izos'k ys pqds gksaxs ,oa in dh okafNr ;ksX;rk dh vfUre o"kZ dh ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gq, ;k lfEefyr gksus okys gSaA ” (underline is mine) 4. There is no quibble about the fact that requisite qualifications and conditions as mentioned in the advertisement stand in conformity with the statutory Rules of 1970. 5. This is an undisputed fact that at the time of submission of online application form, petitioner was undergoing study of Post Graduation i.e. M.A. (Geography) and her result of Post Graduation came to be declared on 24.07.2017. The mark-sheet of petitioner along with additional affidavit has been placed on record as Annexure-7. 6. This is further an admitted and undisputed fact that the written examination of petitioner for the subject in question [2025:RJ-JP:19941] (3 of 6) [CW-8876/2018] pursuant to advertisement dated 16.10.2015 was scheduled and conducted by the RPSC on 21.07.2016. 7. This is also an undisputed fact that up to the date of written examination i.e. 21.07.2016, petitioner could not pass her Post Graduation Degree course, although, she was in possession of B.Ed. Degree. 8. The legal position is well settled that the cut-off date as notified in the advertisement or prescribed in the Rules for acquiring the requisite qualification, should be honored unless there is any repugnance or ambiguity therein. In that respect, reference of the celebrated judgment delivered in case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54] would be suffice wherein the similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently been followed and relied upon by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in case of Ramesh Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 227/2021 decided vide judgment dated 18.01.2022, and whiel affirming the order of learned Single Judge, the requisite qualification acquired by the aspirant up to the cut off date is only considerable. For ready reference, the relevant portion of judgment is being reproduced hereunder:- “It is undisputed that there was a clear stipulation in the advertisement that the aspiring candidates would have to possess requisite qualification as on the date of written examination. Admittedly, neither of the petitioners were having such qualification on 04.08.2020, on which date the written examination was conducted by the Commission. They cleared their respective qualifying examination in the month of December and hence, they were clearly not holding the requisite degree so as to be considered for selection in the subject recruitment process. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54], [2025:RJ-JP:19941] (4 of 6) [CW-8876/2018] the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined a similar controversy and held as below:- “13. The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that in absence of any cutoff date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing of an application shall be considered as such. 14. Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cutoff date. He was, therefore, not eligible therefor. 15. In Bhupinderpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab& Others [(2000) 5 SCC 262], this Court moreover disapproved the prevailing practice in the State of Punjab to determine the eligibility with reference to the date of interview, inter alia, stating: “13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M.Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana the High Court has held (i)that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.”[See Jasbir Rani and Others v. State of Punjab &Another [JT 2001 (9) SC 351 : (2002) 1 SCC124]. 16. Yet again in Shankar K. Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(2003) 9 SCC 519], this Court held that the following principles could be culled out from the aforementioned decisions: “(1) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the [2025:RJ-JP:19941] (5 of 6) [CW-8876/2018] candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules.(2) If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications.(3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.” 17. In M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others[(2003) 7 SCC 517], a contention was made that Ashok Kumar-II (supra) was to operative prospectively or not. The said contention was rejected, stating: “It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective overruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs. That being the position, the High Court was in error by holding that the judgment which operated on the date of selection was operative and not the review judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma case No. II. All the more so when the subsequent judgment is by way of review of the first judgment in which case there are no judgments at all and the subsequent judgment rendered on review petitions is the one and only judgment rendered, effectively and for all purposes, the earlier decision having been erased by countenancing the review applications. The impugned judgments of the High Court are, therefore, set aside.” 18. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application.” (emphasis supplied) [2025:RJ-JP:19941] (6 of 6) [CW-8876/2018] 9. In the case at hand, since undisputed fact is that petitioner could not pass/ acquire the degree of post graduation degree up to the date of conducting the written examination, whereas for the post in question, the requisite qualification is degree of B.Ed. and P.G. both, which should be acquired up to the date of conducting the written examination by the RPSC, hence, her candidature was not found eligible for appointment in terms of stipulation already clarified in the advertisement and accordingly, candidature of petitioner has been rejected by the RPSC vide order dated 21.03.2018. The order dated 21.03.2018 passed by RPSC to this extent, perfectly stands correct and is in alignment with the judgments referred hereinabove. 10. The other reason indicted in the order dated 21.03.2018 in respect of not filing the detailed form by the petitioner within prescribed time limit, becomes insignificant and not required to be addressed on merits, since the petitioner has not been found eligible for appointment due to not acquiring the requisite qualification up to the last cut-off date filed by the respondents in the advertisement of the present Recruitment- 2015. 11. As a result, the candidature of petitioner for appointment on merits for the post in question, pursuant to the present Recruitment- 2015 cannot be allowed to be considered, hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 12. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /129