SHARMA, J. - (1.) SINCE all these writ petitions relate to Advertisement dated October 1, 2001 notified by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short `rpsc') for the direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, they are taken up together for the disposal.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that as many as 71 vacancies for male and 31 for female were advertised by the RPSC on October 1, 2001 for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. Pursuant to the advertisement all the petitioners submitted applications and were allowed to appear in the written examination that was qualified by all the petitioners. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the RPSC on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i. e. November 19, 2001 the petitioners did not posses eligibility requirement incorporated in the advertisement. This act of respondent RPSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners has been assailed in these writ petitions. The petitioners Vikram Singh Rathore and Devendra Kumar Indra joined 3 years Diploma Course in the year 1998 and qualified the same in June, 2001 from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Mumbai. At the time when the petitioners joined Diploma course was recognised by the State of Rajasthan and also by the Central Government. Both the petitioners were permitted to appear in the written examination and after they were declared successful, they were permitted to appear in the interview. At the stage of declaration of final result their selection had been cancelled. The candidature of petitioners was rejected on the premise that they have failed to posses the diploma from the recognised institution and the licence for driving heavy vehicle. The State of Rajasthan derecognised the qualification of the Mechanical Engineers (India) Mumbai vide order dated October 30, 2000. The Central Government further withdrew the equivalence granted vide notification dated June 10, 2002. The case of the petitioners is that they were eligible for employment. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners place reliance on Suresh Pal Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others (1 ). The petitioner Yashwant Singh is by caste Jatsikh and Jatsikh has been notified in the category of OBC in terms of the notification dated November 3, 1999. On December 19, 2001 the State of Rajasthan clarified that Jatsikh were also considered in the category of Jat and Jats were in the category of OBC. The petitioner Yashwant Singh filed the application in the General category for the reason that no specification was available for Jatsikh. After declaration of the result of written examination the petitioner submitted representation on May 5, 2002 and stated that in view of the clarification made by the State of Rajasthan vide notification dated December 19, 2001 the caste Jatsikh was also in the category of Jat, which is in the category of OBC. The petitioner was declared successful in the written examination and was called for interview, but still he was considered in the General Category and not in OBC, accordingly the petitioner was declared unsuccessful. The petitioner Harkesh Meena was also declared successful in the written examination on June 3, 2002. The respondent RPSC informed the petitioner that he was not having requisite experience since he did not attach the experience certificate along with the application form. The petitioner submitted experience certificate much before holding the interview but his candidature was rejected and he was not permitted to appear in the interview. The candidature of petitioners Gunjan, Rajesh, Navneet Bansal, Pooran Mal Raiger and Teekam Chand Meena was rejected on the ground that they do not posses the licence for driving heavy motor vehicles.
(3.) THE respondents submitted return to the writ petitions stating therein that the petitioners were ineligible for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector because they do not posses the requisite qualification as incorporated in the advertisement. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the parties canvassed that the word `and' used in the advertisement is normally conjunctive and it ought to have been read as `or'. Reliance is placed on Fakir Mohd. vs. Sita Ram (2), Samee Khan vs. Bindu Khan (3), Municipal Council Raipur vs. Bishandas Nathumal (4), and Devidayal Nanakchand vs. State Industrial Court Nagpur Having closely scrutinised the pleadings as well as the documents appended with the writ petitions. I find myself unable to agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It was incumbent on the petitioners to properly read the conditions incorporated in the advertisement before submitting the application form. Since they failed to properly scan column No. 13 in regard to `educational Qualification' it is not for this court to give interpretation to word `and' or read between the lines of the conditions narrated in the advertisement. ;