01Facts
The Appellant-RPSC invited applications for 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer via an advertisement dated March 7, 2024, which prescribed a Degree in Law as the essential qualification
¶ 7The Respondents, who were final-year law students at the time, applied despite not having completed their degrees
¶ 8, 11RPSC issued press notes on November 19 and 29, 2024, clarifying that candidates must possess the requisite qualification by the last date of application and mandated the withdrawal of ineligible applications
¶ 9-10The Respondents, having acquired their degrees by August 22, 2024 (after the application deadline but before the exam), challenged these notices. Both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the candidates, directing RPSC to permit them to sit for the examination
¶ 13-1402Issues
i.1. Whether the relevant date for acquiring the minimum essential qualification is the date of submission of the application or any time prior to the commencement of the interview/examination process
¶ 303Law Applied
Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 prescribes the academic qualifications for the post
¶ 19While a prior proviso allowed final-year students to apply subject to qualifying before the selection, this proviso was expressly deleted by a notification dated October 10, 2002
¶ 20The Court applied the legal maxim "aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum" (what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly)
¶ 21Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 217
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the deletion of the proviso to Rule 12 in 2002 evidenced a clear legislative intent: candidates must possess the degree at the time of application
¶ 20It rejected the High Court’s reasoning that "two interpretations" were possible; the Court held that the advertisement's requirement to "possess" a degree is unambiguous and excludes those who might acquire it in the future
¶ 21, 23The Court reasoned that moving the eligibility cutoff to the exam or interview stage would create administrative chaos and uncertainty, as eligibility must be assessed based on documents furnished at the time of application
¶ 18, 24The press note dated November 29, 2024, was deemed a valid clarification of the existing rules, not a mid-process change of conditions
¶ 2505Holding
It held that the cut-off date for eligibility is the date of submission of the application pursuant to the advertisement
¶ 18The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s judgment. Consequently, the Respondents, who did not possess Law degrees on the application deadline, were ineligible to participate in the recruitment process
¶ 25, 26-27Original Court PDF
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, AjmervsLavanshu Sankhla
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
