Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs Lavanshu Sankhla
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 444
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 32964 OF 2025
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LAVANSHU SANKHLA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 33900 OF 2025
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 33945 OF 2025
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 33908 OF 2025
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 34897 OF 2025
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 34899 OF 2025
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38211 OF 2025
AND WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38710 OF 2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.05.04
17:45:54 IST
Reason:
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 12
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
3. The issue that falls for our consideration is whether
the relevant date for acquiring the minimum essential
qualification is the date of submission of the application
pursuant to the advertisement, or any time prior to the
commencement of the interview process.
4. The present appeals have been filed by the Rajasthan
1
Public Service Commission, Ajmer assailing the common
th
judgment dated 12 August, 2025, passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
2 3
Jodhpur in intra-court appeals , whereby the judgment
th
dated 15 January, 2025, passed by the learned Single
Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20295 of 2024 and
4
connected matters was affirmed. By the said judgment, the
learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petitions filed by
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-RPSC”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
3
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 169 of 2025, 130 of 2025, 135 of 2025, 244 of 2025, 279
of 2025, 631 of 2025, 789 of 2025 and 823 of 2025.
4
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 75 of 2025, 20456 of 2024, 20541 of 2024, 20580 of
2024, 20586 of 2024, 20598 of 2024 and 20611 of 2024.
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 2 of 12
the respondents herein and directed the appellant-RPSC to
issue admit cards to the writ petitioners (private
respondents herein) and permit them to appear in the
preliminary examination.
5. The brief facts, to the extent necessary for the disposal of
the present appeals, are set out hereinbelow: –
6. The private respondents herein were the writ petitioners
before the High Court and were recent law graduates at the
time of institution of the writ petitions.
th
7. On 7 March, 2024, the appellant-Rajasthan Public
Service Commission issued an advertisement inviting
applications for 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer.
The relevant extract of the said advertisement providing the
essential educational qualification is reproduced
hereinbelow: -
“ Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
Advertisement No.: 19/Exam/ A.P.O./ Prosecution
Deptt./ EP-I/ 2023-24
Date: 07.03.2024
Online applications are invited by the Commission for
recruitment to a total of 181 posts of Assistant
Prosecution Officer for Home Department
(Prosecution) under Rajasthan Prosecution
Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 for non-scheduled area
and under the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate,
Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other
Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 for scheduled area. …
…
Essential Educational Qualification:
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 3 of 12
(1) Degree in Law (Professional) or integrated Law Course
from a University established by law in India.
(2) Working Knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri
Script and knowledge of Rajasthani dialects and social
customs of Rajasthan.”
8. Pursuant thereto, the respondents submitted their online
application forms. It is an admitted position that, as on the
date of submission of the applications, the respondents had
not acquired their degree and were yet to appear in the final
year examination.
th
9. By a press note dated 19 November, 2024, issued by
the appellant–Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the
preliminary examination for the subject post was scheduled
th
to be held on 19 January, 2025. It was further clarified
therein that candidates who did not possess the prescribed
qualifications or requisite experience for the said post were
required to withdraw their applications, failing which they
would be liable to be disqualified. Being germane to the
controversy, the relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:
-
“ RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
AJMER
- :PRESS NOTE: -
Date: 19.11.2024
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer the
Commission proposes to conduct the Assistant
Prosecution Officer Home Department (Prosecution)
Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2024 on
19.01.2025.
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 4 of 12
…
Also, candidates who have applied online despite not
possessing the educational qualification/experience
as per the advertisement, action can be taken
against such candidates under Section 217 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and to debar them from the
upcoming recruitment examination of the
Commission. Therefore, such candidates can also
withdraw their online application form by logging on
to the SSO Portal from 20.11.2024 to 26.11.2024,
selecting the Recruitment Portal and clicking on the
Withdraw Button available in front of the concerned
examination under My Recruitment Section. …”
(emphasis supplied)
th
10. Subsequently, by another press note dated 29
November, 2024, the appellant-RPSC clarified that under
the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules,
1978, candidates who were appearing in the final year of
the prescribed educational qualification, or who had not
acquired the requisite qualification as on the date of the
selection examination, were not eligible to participate in the
selection process. The relevant extract of the said press note
is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
AJMER
- :PRESS NOTE: -
Date: 29.11.2024
Advertisement number 19/2023-24 dated 07.03.2024
was issued by the Commission for recruitment to a total
of 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer for Home
(Prosecution) Department under Rajasthan Prosecution
Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. …
…
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 5 of 12
In the said service rules, there is no provision for the
candidates who are/have already acquired the
educational qualification till the date of examination
and are appearing in the final year of educational
qualification.
In the sequence of the said recruitment notification,
it is clarified again that only those candidates who
have acquired the educational qualification till the
last date of application will be considered eligible
under this recruitment. Therefore, those candidates
who do not have the educational qualification till the last
date of application, should withdraw their online
application form from 30.11.2024 to 09.12.2024 at
12:00 PM. After the said date, the link will automatically
become Inactive. …”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Admittedly, the respondents did not possess an LL.B.
degree as on the last date for submission of online
applications, as they were yet to appear in the final
examination of their course. They subsequently acquired
nd
the requisite qualification on 22 August, 2024.
12. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the
High Court by filing writ petitions seeking a direction to the
appellant-RPSC to permit them to participate in the
selection process for the subject post.
th
13. By judgment dated 15 January, 2025, the learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the
appellant-RPSC to issue admit cards to the writ petitioners
and permit them to appear in the preliminary examination
th
scheduled for 19 January, 2025.
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 6 of 12
14. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred intra-court
appeals before the High Court. The Division Bench, by
th
judgment dated 12 August, 2025, dismissed the said
appeals and affirmed the decision of the learned Single
Judge.
15. The appellant–RPSC is, thus, before us.
16. At the outset, we are unable to concur with the
reasoning adopted by the High Court in arriving at its
conclusion. In order to appreciate the controversy in its
proper perspective, it is necessary to advert to the reasoning
recorded by the courts below while allowing the writ
petitions, which may be summarised as follows: -
i. That the advertisement and guidelines issued by the
appellant–RPSC permitted candidates who were in the
final year of the qualifying examination to apply,
subject to their acquiring the requisite qualification by
the date of the examination.
ii. That the writ petitioners had acquired the requisite
nd
qualification on 22 August, 2024, well before the
th
date of the preliminary examination, i.e., 19
January, 2025.
iii. That Clause 7 of the advertisement indicated that the
prescribed educational qualification or experience
could be acquired by the last date of application, the
date of examination, or the date of interview.
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 7 of 12
th
iv. That the press notes dated 19 November, 2024 and
th
29 November, 2024 altered the eligibility conditions
mid-process, thereby causing prejudice to candidates
who had acted on the basis of the original
advertisement.
v. That where two interpretations are possible, the one
favouring the candidates ought to be preferred, as it
enlarges the pool of eligible candidates and promotes
fair competition.
17. It is pertinent to note that the essential educational
qualification prescribed under the subject advertisement
requires a candidate to possess a Degree in Law
(Professional) or an integrated Law degree from a university
established by law in India. Further, the seventh clause
under the heading “Very Important Points/Notes” in the
advertisement clearly stipulates that applications shall
initially be provisionally admitted to the recruitment
process, subject to verification, and that the candidature of
any applicant is liable to be cancelled upon detection of
ineligibility on account of age, educational qualification, or
other prescribed conditions.
18. 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
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 8 of 12
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.
19. It would be apposite, at this stage, to refer to the
Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978.
Rule 12 thereof deals with the “Academic Qualification”
prescribed for the post in question. Notably, the said Rule
earlier contained a proviso granting exemption to
candidates who had appeared or were appearing in the final
year examination of the course constituting the requisite
educational qualification for direct recruitment under the
Rules. Being relevant to the controversy at hand, Rule 12 is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ 12. Academic qualification:- A candidate for direct
recruitment to the posts enumerated in Schedule-1,
shall possess,-
(i) the qualification and experience given in column 4 of
the Schedule-I; and
(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari
script and knowledge of Rajasthani dialects and social
customs of Rajasthan.
Provided that the 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 but he/she shall have to submit proof of having
acquired the requisite educational qualification to
the appropriate selection agency . …”
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 9 of 12
(emphasis supplied)
20. However, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid
proviso to Rule 12, which granted relaxation to candidates
appearing in the final year of the qualifying examination,
th
came to be deleted by a notification dated 10 October,
2002 issued by respondent No. 2-State. The legislative
intent underlying such deletion is clear and unambiguous,
namely, that candidates who have not acquired the
requisite educational qualification as on the relevant date
are not eligible to apply for the post in question.
21. The maxim “ aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et
per obliquum ”, what cannot be done directly cannot be
permitted to be done indirectly, squarely applies to the
present case. The said principle embodies the rule that
what is expressly prohibited by law cannot be circumvented
through indirect means. The requirement in the
advertisement that a candidate must “possess” a Degree in
Law (Professional) or an integrated Law degree from a
recognised university necessarily excludes those
candidates who are yet to acquire such qualification or who
may acquire it at a future date.
22. This position stands further clarified by the press note
th
dated 29 November, 2024, which reiterates that under the
Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978,
there is no provision permitting candidates who are either
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 10 of 12
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.
23. We are also unable to concur with the reasoning of the
High Court that, where two interpretations of the guidelines
are possible, the one favourable to the candidates ought to
be adopted. Such an approach, based on considerations of
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.
The prescribed eligibility condition unequivocally requires
possession of the degree at the relevant point of time.
24. Even otherwise, 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.
th
25. In our considered view, the press note dated 29
November, 2024 is in complete consonance with the
Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978
th
and the advertisement dated 7 March, 2024, and merely
clarifies the position that eligibility must be determined
with reference to the date of submission of the application.
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 11 of 12
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the common
th
judgment dated 12 August, 2025, passed in D.B. Special
5
Appeal Writ No. 169 of 2025 and connected matters , is
hereby set aside.
27. Consequently, the present appeals are allowed.
28. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
MAY 04, 2026
5
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 130 of 2025, 135 of 2025, 244 of 2025, 279 of 2025,
631 of 2025, 789 of 2025 and 823 of 2025.
C A @ SLP(C)No.32964/2025 and connected matters Page 12 of 12