- (1.) IN challenge is the judgment and order dated 13.11.2013, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16694/2013. We have heard Mr. A.R. Meena, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ -petitioner.
(2.) SHORTLY put the relevant facts, are that the appellant/writ - petitioner, who claims to have passed High School Examination in the year 2009, did respond to an advertisement bearing No.MD/JCTSL/2012/D -2632, dated 18.12.2012, issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. Jaipur City Transport Services Limited (for short, hereafter referred to as the 'respondent -Company' as well) for recruitment to the post of Conductor (Bus Co -Captain). One of the conditions of eligibility, in terms of the advertisement, was that on 30.01.2013, the last date of receipt of application, a candidate contending for the post of Conductor, ought to be possessed of conductor licence. As has been pleaded by the appellant/writ -petitioner, her licence, issued on 15.05.2012, was valid up to 09.01.2013. She submitted her application on 28.01.2013 for the said post. Though, she had duly applied for renewal of the licence on 10.01.2013, her application remained pending and it was after 30.01.2013 that it was renewed for the period from 26.08.2013 to 25.08.2016. In this factual backdrop, her candidature having been rejected as she did not possess the conductor licence as on 30.01.2013, as stipulated in the advertisement, she turned to this Court for redress. By the impugned judgment and order, her challenge has been negated. Mr. Meena has argued that as on the date of advertisement i.e. 18.12.2012, the appellant/writ -petitioner did possess the conductor licence, her candidature could not have been rejected, more particularly in view of the renewal thereof subsequently during the continuance of the recruitment process. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge having left out of his consideration this vital aspect, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. We are left unpersuaded by this plea. It cannot be gainsaid that the stipulations in the advertisement for recruitment to a public office through participatory process, are of binding impact and no departure therefrom is permissible. In terms of the aforestated stipulation in the advertisement, a candidate to be eligible to apply for the post of Conductor, was to essentially possess the conductor licence on the last date of receipt of the application i.e. 30.01.2013.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the appellant/writ -petitioner's licence expired/lapsed on 09.01.2013. Indeed, she applied thereafter on 10.01.2013 and on both the dates i.e. 10.01.2013 and 30.01.2013, she was not possessed of a valid conductor licence, as was prescribed. She was, thus, in our comprehension, clearly ineligible to apply for the post of Conductor, in terms of the advertisement. The renewal of her licence for the period from 26.08.2013 to 25.08.2016 is after 30.01.2013 and thus is of no avail to her. Her plea that she had a valid conductor licence on the date of advertisement, is also wholly inconsequential. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and order, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the determination made thereby.;