- (1.) IN both the above writ petitions, common question is involved, therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1520/2013 are hereby taken into consideration to decide the controversy in both the writ petitions.
(2.) AS per facts of the case, all the petitioners are possessing qualification of graduation and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) and they applied for the posts of Physical Teachers Grade II and Grade III in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.12.2011 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioners applied for the posts of P.T.I. Grade III, for which, initially 1303 vacancies were advertised vide advertisement dated 14.12.2011; but, later on, a corrigendum was issued on 26.10.2012 by which the vacancies were enhanced and, in addition to the vacancies earlier advertised, 1265 vacancies were enhanced. As per the advertisement, it was specifically provided that the candidates of final year of the qualification of eligibility will be permitted to appear in the written examination but on the date on which the written examination will be conducted by the Commission they should possess the required qualification for recruitment on the post. The petitioners were allowed to appear in the competitive examination in which although they were declared successful in the written examination but they were not allowed to appear in the interview for the reason that they were not possessing the eligibility qualification as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement on the case of examination. The petitioners are challenging the validity of letter of rejection Annex. P/7 in this writ petition.
(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the service conditions of posts of P.T.I. Grade III is governed under the Rules of 1971 and, as per Rule 11, the candidate for direct recruitment to the posts enumerated in the Schedule must hold the qualification as specified in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1971, therefore, it is obvious that the purpose of provision of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 is that the candidate for direct recruitment must possess the qualification at the time of recruitment and petitioners acquired the eligibility qualification of B.P.Ed. Prior to declaration of the result of the written examination of the competitive test. Therefore, as per Rule 11 of the Rules, the respondents were required to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appearing in the interview because the rule does not require acquiring qualification before the date of examination. Therefore, it is prayed that the cancellation of the petitioners' candidature is not sustainable in the eye of law.;