- (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 13.4.2011 at Annexure-1 whereby candidature of the petitioner was rejected for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. The petitioner applied for the aforesaid post pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.7.2008 and corrigendum issued on 18.8.2008.
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that petitioner did his Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) (BE) in Auto-mobile Engineering in the year 2008 and is in possession of the required experience of one year from reputed auto-mobile workshop thus eligible for appointment to the aforesaid post. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that he did not acquire working experience after passing BE. The petitioner earlier preferred SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6488/2011 wherein this court passed and interim order to allow him to appear in selection. Respondents declared result, however, petitioner's result was kept in sealed cover as per interim order. The result of the petitioner was then opened in the court, wherein, his marks were shown 236 as against cut off marks of 237. The writ petition was accordingly withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition, challenging application of scaling formula adopted by the respondents. The petitioner accordingly challenged the application of scaling formula by this writ petition. A further prayer is made to declare petitioner as eligible for the post in reference. So far as issue of scaling is concerned, it has already been decided by this court in other petitions thus applies to all concerned being judgment in rem. Petitioner's case is covered by the judgments and issue aforesaid is not required to be decided in this matter. The only issue for consideration is as to whether a candidate is required to possess experience after obtaining educational qualification for the post or it can be prior to or simultaneous to the educational qualification obtained by a candidate? Referring to the facts of this case, it is submitted that petitioner possesses requisite educational qualification from the University of Rajasthan on 18.8.2008 and working experience as Apprentice w.e.f. 1.7.2007 till 10.8.2008 from M/s Roshan Motors, Jaipur. The rule does not provide for experience subsequent to educational qualification required for the post yet respondents imposed a condition to possess experience subsequent to the educational qualification in ignorance of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court apart from the rules applicable in the matter. Reference of the advertisement has also been given to indicate that requisite educational qualification and experience is provided without a condition that experience should be possessed subsequent to educational qualification. The respondents amended condition of advertisement on 18.8.2008 to provide that experience should be possessed after educational qualification on or before 6.9.2008. The petitioner possessed experience and qualification on or before the aforesaid date. The only controversy now remains about the condition that experience of one year should be possessed by a candidate after the educational qualification. The aforesaid condition is illegal and the issue aforesaid has already been considered and decided by various High Courts as well as the Apex Court. Reference of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of "Shaila Beegum versus Kerala Public Service Commission", reported in 1997(4) SCT 460 has been given wherein similar issue was considered and decided. A further reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Subhash s/o Shriram Dhonde versus State of Maharashtra and anr", reported in 1995 Supp(3) SCC 332 has been given. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that experience need not be after educational qualification but it can be prior to it. The petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment in the case of "B Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi versus Union of India and ors", reported in 2008 (1) SLR 651.
(3.) THE view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash (supra) was reiterated even in subsequent judgment in the case of "Anil Kumar Gupta and ors versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors", reported in (2000) 1 SCC 128. It is accordingly prayed that corrigendum should not be given effect in the present matter as it is contrary to the rules. It does not provide possession of experience subsequent to the educational qualification. The respondents cannot alter rule by issuing corrigendum in the advertisement. The impugned order thus deserves to be set aside as the petitioner possesses requisite experience and educational qualification on or prior to the date of submission of application form. Learned counsel for respondents contested the matter. It is submitted that rule provides about educational qualification so as one year's experience thus experience of one year has to be possessed subsequent to the educational qualification. The petitioner herein possesses experience prior to completion of educational qualification thus was not eligible. The issue aforesaid has already been settled by Full Bench judgment of this court in bunch of cases led by "DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.571/2004, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer versus Abhijeet Singh Yadav, decided on 13.4.2010. The issue was even decided by the Apex Court in the case of "Indian Airlines Ltd and ors versus S.Gopalakrishnan", reported in (2001) 2 SCC 362. It was made clear to all the candidates that experience should be after possessing educational qualification. It is, accordingly, prayed that writ petition may be dismissed. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record. ;