Supreme Court Bars Candidates Without Law Degree On Date Of Advertisement From Rajasthan Asst Prosecution Officer Exam

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 4) declared several candidates ineligible for the Rajasthan Assistant Prosecution Officer Exam, 2024, noting that they lacked the requisite law degree at the time of submitting an application for examination. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, which had allowed the Respondent candidates to appear in the preliminary examination despite lacking a requisite law degree at the time of submitting an application form. The Respondent-candidates sought permission to appear in the examination for Rajasthan APO, where 181 posts were advertised via a recruitment advertisement dated March 7, 2024. Possessing a law degree was one of the requirements for becoming eligible to appear in the examination. However, on the date of submission of an application, the Respondents lacked the requisite qualification, as they only acquired the requisite qualification on August 22, 2024. Aggrieved by the denial of their participation in the recruitment process, the candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court, where both the Single and Division Bench held in their favor, directing the Appellant-Commission to issue admit cards in their favor, enabling them to appear in the preliminary examination. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the RPSC filed a plea to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned judgment, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed that the High Court erred in allowing the candidates to appear in the process, while ignoring the fact that they lacked the requisite qualification at the time of submitting the application. “A conjoint reading of the advertisement and the governing rules makes it evident that the relevant date for determining eligibility, including educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application. This is for the reason that the eligibility of a candidate is assessed on the basis of the particulars and documents furnished at the time of application, and there is no provision for subsequent supplementation or re-submission of such documents at a later stage.”, the court observed. “…there is no provision permitting candidates who are either appearing in the final year of the prescribed qualification or who acquire the qualification by the date of examination to participate in the selection process.”, the court added, referring to Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. The Court rejected the candidates' argument that enlarging the pool of candidates would in fact enable the competition. Instead, the Court said that “enlarging the pool of candidates or promoting competition, cannot be invoked when the language of the advertisement admits of only one clear and unambiguous interpretation.” that the candidates need to have possessed requisite qualification at the time of submission of an application. “…acceptance of the respondents' contention, that candidates who acquire the qualification at any stage prior to the interview should be treated as eligible, would introduce uncertainty into the selection process and impose an unwarranted administrative burden upon the appellant-RPSC in tracking subsequent acquisitions of qualifications.”, the court added. In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.HeadnoteRajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 — Rule 12 — Academic Qualification — Deletion of Proviso Allowing Final Year Students — Relevant Date for Eligibility — The Supreme Court held that the relevant date for determining the eligibility, including the minimum essential educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application pursuant to the recruitment advertisement, and not any subsequent stage prior to the examination or interview.Interpretation of Rules and Advertisements — Principles of Eligibility — When the language of a recruitment advertisement admits of only one clear and unambiguous interpretation requiring the "possession" of a degree, considerations of enlarging the candidate pool or promoting competition cannot be invoked to adopt an alternative interpretation - Accepting a contention that qualifications can be acquired at any stage prior to the interview introduces uncertainty into the selection process and imposes an unwarranted administrative burden on the selecting authority.Legal Maxim — Aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum — What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly - This principle embodies the rule that what is expressly prohibited by law cannot be circumvented through indirect means - Since the statutory proviso relaxing eligibility for final year candidates was explicitly deleted by a state notification, candidates who have not acquired the requisite qualification as on the last date of application cannot circumvent this prohibition to participate in the selection process. [Paras...

Supreme Court Bars Candidates Without Law Degree On Date Of Advertisement From Rajasthan Asst Prosecution Officer Exam

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Supreme Court Bars Candidates Without Law Degree On Date Of Advertisement From Rajasthan Asst Prosecution Officer Exam

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers