Service Law — Recruitment — Essential Educational Qualification — Relevant date for determining eligibility — Whether qualification can be acquired after last date of application but before examination/interview — Held, eligibility must exist on date of submission of application — Candidates not possessing LL.B. degree on last date of application held ineligible.
The Supreme Court held that a conjoint reading of the recruitment advertisement and the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 clearly established that the relevant date for determining eligibility, including educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application. The Court observed that the eligibility of candidates is assessed on the basis of particulars and documents furnished at the time of application and there is no provision permitting later supplementation of qualifications. Consequently, candidates who had not acquired the LL.B. degree as on the last date for submission of applications could not claim eligibility merely because they acquired the qualification before the preliminary examination. (Paras 17, 18, 25)
Service Law — Recruitment Rules — Deletion of proviso permitting final year candidates to apply — Effect — Legislative intent — Final year students held not eligible after deletion of proviso to Rule 12.
The Court noted that Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 earlier contained a proviso permitting candidates appearing in the final year examination to apply subject to production of proof of qualification later. However, the said proviso was deleted by notification dated 10.10.2002. The Court held that the deletion clearly reflected legislative intent that only candidates who had already acquired the prescribed qualification as on the relevant date were eligible to apply. (Paras 19, 20)
Interpretation of Recruitment Advertisement — Requirement that candidate must “possess” prescribed degree — Scope — Future acquisition of qualification excluded.
The Supreme Court held that the requirement in the advertisement that a candidate must “possess” a Degree in Law necessarily excludes candidates who are yet to acquire such qualification or who may acquire it at a future date. Applying the maxim “aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” (what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly), the Court ruled that eligibility conditions expressly prescribed cannot be diluted by indirect interpretation. (Para 21)
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Clarificatory press note — Whether alteration of eligibility conditions mid-process — Held, press note merely clarified existing position under Rules and advertisement.
Rejecting the High Court’s view that the press notes dated 19.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 altered eligibility conditions during the recruitment process, the Supreme Court held that the press note dated 29.11.2024 was fully consistent with the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the recruitment advertisement. The press note merely clarified that eligibility had to be determined with reference to the last date of submission of applications. (Paras 22, 25)
Interpretation of Eligibility Conditions — Beneficial interpretation in favour of candidates — Applicability — Cannot override clear and unambiguous eligibility criteria.
The Supreme Court held that the principle that, where two interpretations are possible, the one favouring candidates should be adopted, has no application where the language of the recruitment advertisement is clear and unambiguous. Considerations such as enlarging the pool of candidates or promoting competition cannot override explicit eligibility requirements prescribed under statutory rules and advertisement conditions. (Para 23)
Service Law — Recruitment — Administrative certainty in selection process — Subsequent acquisition of qualification — Rejection thereof.
The Court observed that accepting the contention that candidates acquiring qualification at any stage prior to interview should be treated as eligible would create uncertainty in the recruitment process and impose unwarranted administrative burden upon the recruiting authority in continuously tracking acquisition of qualifications after submission of applications. (Para 24)
Result — Appeals allowed — Judgments of learned Single Judge and Division Bench directing issuance of admit cards to ineligible candidates set aside.
The Supreme Court set aside the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. (Paras 26, 27)
