GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 28. 11. 2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 26. 11. 2002 (Annex. 7) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) by which the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the interview for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector on the ground that the permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) dtd. 30. 4. 2002 was issued to the petitioner after submission of last date of application form i. e. 19. 11. 2001, be quashed and set aside and further the respondents be directed to call the petitioner for interview for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector and appoint him on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, if he is otherwise found suitable.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : i) That the petitioner passed the Secondary Examination in the year 1990 from the Board of Secondary Examination. THEreafter the petitioner passed Senior Secondary Examination in the year 1992 from the Board of Secondary Examination. THEreafter the petitioner obtained Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the Board of Technical Education in the year 1995-96. Copies of mark- sheets of Secondary, Sr. Secondary and Diploma in Mechanical Engineering are marked as ANNEX. 1 collectively. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that after obtaining diploma in mechanical engineering, the petitioner worked for more than one year with many workshops where repairing of Light Motor Vehicle etc. were done. Some of the certificates issued by the authorized persons of the workshops are marked as ANNEX. 2 collectively. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that on 1. 10. 2001, the petitioner was issued a learning licence (Annex. 3) by the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur for driving heavy goods vehicle as well as Heavy Passenger Vehicles. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) on 30. 4. 2002 by the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur. v) Further case of the petitioner is that on 31. 10. 2001, the respondent-Commission issued an advertisement (Annex. 5) inviting applications for appointment on 101 posts of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspectors and the last date of submitting the application form was 19. 11. 2001. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector is governed by the Rajasthan Transport Sub Ordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963 ). vii) Further case of the petitioner is that as the petitioner was having requisite qualification and was eligible for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, the petitioner submitted his candidature for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector to the respondents and the respondents permitted the petitioner to take up the written examination with the Roll No. 100508. Petitioner appeared in the written test and was declared successful by the respondents. viii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued an interview letter dtd. 1. 11. 2002 (Annex. 6) by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) directing him to appear in the interview to be held on 26. 11. 2002. ix) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of interview letter dtd. 1. 11. 2002 (Annex. 6) issued by respondent No. 2 (Secretary Rajasthan Public Service Commission), the petitioner appeared for interview on 26. 11. 2002 in the office of respondent-Commission. However, after verification of the documents, the petitioner's candidature was rejected vide letter dtd. 26. 11. 2002 (Annex. 7) issued by the respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i. e. 19. 11. 2001, the petitioner was not having permanent driving licence and therefore, he was not having requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application form i. e. 19. 11. 2001. In this writ petition, the letter dtd. 26. 11. 2002 (Annex. 7) passed by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) has been challenged on various grounds. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was having all requisite qualifications of appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector except the permanent driving licence, but he was having learning licence dtd. 1. 10. 2001 (Annex. 3) and that is why his application form was accepted by the respondents and when he was called for interview vide letter dtd. 1. 11. 2002 (Annex. 6) to be held on 26. 11. 2002, prior to that on 30. 4. 2002, the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) and therefore, rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide letter dtd. 26. 11. 2002 (Annex. 7) issued by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) on the ground that he was not having permanent driving licence on the last date of submission of application form i. e. 19. 11. 2001 is absolutely illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and hence this writ petition should be allowed. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that since on the last date of submission of application i. e. 19. 11. 2001, the petitioner was not having permanent driving licence, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected vide letter dtd. 26. 11. 2002 (Annex. 7) and hence no case is made out and the writ petition should be dismissed. Heard and perused the record. Admitted position of this case may be summarized in the following manner: i) That the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 31. 10. 2001 (Annex. 5 ). ii) That the last date of submission of application form was 19. 11. 2001. iii) That the application form of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents. iv) That in the advertisement dtd. 31. 10. 2001 (Annex. 5), it was mentioned that a candidate must have permanent driving licence for driving heavy vehicle, on the last date of submission of application form i. e. 19. 11. 2001. v) That on 19. 11. 2001 i. e. last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was having learning driving licence dtd. 1. 10. 2001 (Annex. 3) and not permanent driving licence. vi) That on 30. 4. 2002, the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence (Annex. 4 ). vii) That the petitioner was called for interview vide interview letter dtd. 1. 11. 2002 to be held on 26. 11. 2002 and at the time of interview, the petitioner was having permanent driving licence dtd. 30. 4. 2002 (Annex. 4 ).
(3.) NOW the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) vide letter dtd. 26. 11. 2002 (Annex. 7) or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. vs. Chander Shekhar and Anr. (1), has held that educational qualifications fulfilled on the date of interview could be taken into consideration and the fulfillment of educational qualifications on the date of submission of application form was not necessary, but later on the view expressed in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra) was not found proper by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the review petition filed in the above case of Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar (Supra), was reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dtd. 10. 3. 97 and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the view taken in the above judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra), was unsustainable and amounted to clear error of law apparent on the face of record. This review judgment is Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. vs. Chander Shekhar and Anr Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the review judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra), was that the qualifications are to be seen as on the date of advertisement and not on the date of interview. This Court in the case of Man Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3), while placing reliance on review judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar (Supra), has also taken the same view that the qualifications are to be seen on the date of advertisement and not on the date of interview. ;