Rajasthan HC Permits Law Students To Sit For Exam To Govt Post, Who Were Barred Earlier After Change In Eligibility Criteria Mid Process

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court granted relief to certain candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, directing the State to allow these candidates to appear for the examination to the Post even though at the time of filling the application form they had not passed their law degree.The Court was hearing a petition filed by the candidates. The advertisement for the Post was issued by RPSC in which the eligibility column in relation to completion of the law degree also gave the option of “appearing” in the final year examination of the course. The criteria said, "Provided that a person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course, which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or Schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post". However, by way of corrigenda issued pursuant to this advertisement it was highlighted that only such candidates who had acquired the required qualifications for the Post by the last date of application were eligible for recruitment and all other candidates were directed to withdraw their applications.Hence, the law students who were yet to appear for the final year examination at the time of filing the application but had applied based on the initial advertisement moved the high court. Justice Arun Monga observed that the actions of the candidates were in consonance with the original advertisement for the post, the detailed guidelines provided on the website of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), as well as the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the same could not have been changed by RPSC in the middle of the selection process.“The RPSC's inconsistent change of stance is nothing but reflective of administrative oversight rather than a well-considered policy. Candidates should not suffer due to such errors, as their actions were in compliance with the original advertisement.” After hearing the contentions, and perusing all the records, the Court highlighted certain contradictory positions of RPSC. The Court highlighted that Clause 7 of the original advertisement clearly stated that the candidate must acquire the required educational qualification till the last date of application/ exam date/ interview date. It was opined that since there was no clarity about the last date, any candidate would opt for the last of the three cut off dates. The Court also highlighted that the advertisement was in confirmation with the guidelines appearing on the website of RPSC as instructions for the online application. Guideline no. 2 was clear to the effect that the person who was appearing in the final examination of their law degree was eligible to apply for the post, provided the degree was acquired before written examination or the interview. The Court further referred to Rule 12 of the Rules and opined that the Rule mentioned that a candidate must have required qualification, but it did not specify the cut off date. Furthermore, the Court observed that in the application form, the candidates were given an option of choosing between “appearing in the final examination” or “having a degree”. Hence, two categories of candidates were created, one who had the degree and the other who were yet to acquire it. If it was desired that candidates should have completed their law degree at the time of applying, no such option should have been given in the form. Since RPSC allowed the applications from such applicants who were in final year of law examination, it created legitimate expectation that such candidates would be considered eligible. In this background, the Court held that, “Therefore, once the petitioner was allowed to submit the online application, she cannot be now be deemed ineligible after eight months. The selection process, which began with the issuance of the advertisement, must be completed in accordance with the conditions mentioned therein. Trite it may sound, but Rules of the game cannot be changed once the whistle has been blown and match has begun.”The Court observed that the corrigenda appeared to be an afterthought and completely contradictory to the initial position taken by RSPC in the advertisement. And in the case of two interpretations of the position, the one that benefitted the candidates had to be adopted. “RPSC has been blowing hot and cold by way of its contradictory stand leading to two interpretations i.e. one on the basis of guidelines & the advertisement and second on the basis of corrigendum date 19.11.2024… if two interpretations of a guideline are possible, the one favorable to candidates should be adopted… for that creates larger talent pool and give rise to healthy competition for selection of the best available to serve the state/general public.”Considering this analysis, the Court held that the online applications of all those candidates who were appearing in final law examination were rightly...

Rajasthan HC Permits Law Students To Sit For Exam To Govt Post, Who Were Barred Earlier After Change In Eligibility Criteria Mid Process

Nupur Agrawal

Tags