SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30. 09. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2596/94 dismissing the petition of the appellant-petitioner.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal as unfolded in the writ petitoin briefly stated are as under: The appellant-petitioner is a resident of Nawalgarh in District-Jhunjhunu, State of Rajasthan. He passed his 10 + 2 examination in the year 1990 securing 50% marks. Thereafter, he joined graduation course in Poddar College, Nawalgarh, which is affiliated college of the University of Rajasthan. He cleared his 1st Year Examination and Second Year Examination securing 69% and 68% marks, respectively. The appellant-petitioner appeared in the Third Year Examination in the month of May, 1993. It appears that an advertisement was published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer in Rojgar Sandesh dated, 15. 04. 1993 inviting applications for various posts under the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 and the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, including that of Ranger Grade- I. The total number of posts of Rangers that were to be filled in were 55. The appellant-petitioner applied for the post of Ranger Grade-I. In the advertisement the last date for submission of the application form was given as 31. 05. 1993. The minimum qualification for the post of Ranger Grade-I was prescribed in the Notification as graduation from a recognised University. It is alleged that a note was mentioned in Item No. 13 to the effect that the applications of such candidates who will get success in the examination by the last date of submission of the application forms, shall be considered as having been rejected. It was further averred that this note was vague and on a reading of the same nothing could be dediphered as to what was the intention of the respondents by inserting a note of this type. It was also alleged that from a perusal of the contents of para 4 and 5 it seems that the respondent had clearly mentioned that the candidates should have ascertained on their own that they possess the requisite academic qualification for written examination to be held before the candidates were called for interview. The main contention raised by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was that the note appended in the advertisement did not lays down that the candidates should possess the academic qualification on the last date fixed for submission of application form. It appears that the appellant-petitioner was called for written test in the month of December, 1993 in which he appeared. In fact the said examinations were to be conducted in the month of September, 1993, however the said examination was post-poned for the month of December, 1993. It was alleged that the petitioner's result for Bechlors' Degree was declared on 10. 07. 1993. After written examination, a letter was sent to the appellant-petitioner directing him to appear in the interview on 24. 05. 1994 at 9. 45 a. m in the office of RPSC at Ajmer. One of the conditions mentioned in the end of the aforesaid letter was that the candidates who had already cleared their B. Sc. Examination by 31. 05. 1993 shall be considered eligible and incase they had not cleared the examination, their candidature will be rejected. The appellant contended that this was for the first time that such condition was put in the interview letter. Appellant-petitioner feeling aggrieved by the agrosaid condition mentioned in the interview letters, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that the condition mentioned in the interview letter should be quashed and the respondent be directed to allow the appellant petitioner to appear in the interview, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner did not possess the degree of graduation on 31st May 1993. The respondent-RPSC contested the claim of the appellant-petitioner and in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the specific stand was taken that according to the advertisement issued by the commission, the appellant-petitioner was required to have passed his Bechlors' examination on the last date fixed for submission of the application. Admittedly, the appellant petitioner did not possess the Bechlors' degree on that date, inasmuch as the appellant appeared in the B. Sc. Examination in the month of May, 1993 and as passed the aforesaid examination in July, 1993 and such there could not be any dispute between the parties on the point that the appellant- petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification of passing the Bechlors' degree on the last date fixed for submission of the application from. The respondent also urged that the interpretation given by the appellant -petitioner to the note appended to the advertisement published in the Rojgar Sandesh was only hypothetical and misconceived. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, dismissed the writ petition of the appellant- petitioner. Appellant-petitioner feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order has come in the instant special appeal.
(3.) MR. P. S. Asopa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner contended that in the advertisement published in Rojgar Sandesh elated 15. 04. 1993 a note was given which according to him does not contain any condition that the applicant should possess B. Sc. degree on the last date fixed for submission of the application form. The note appended to the advertisement published in Rojgar Sandesh dated 15. 04. 1993, runs as under: uksv % vkosnu i= vk;ksx dk;kzy; esa izkir djus ds vafre fnukad rd vkosnd Lukrd ijh{kk mrrh. kz gksus ij vkosnd dk vkosnu i= 'ks{kf. kd ;ksx;rk ds vhkko esa vlohd`r le> k tkosxka** He further contended that since the appellant-petitioner had obtained the degree of B. Sc. before the examination was held in view of the note appended to the advertisement published in Rojgar Sandesh dated 15. 04. 1993 he was entitled to be interviewed and the action of the respondent in not permitting the appellant-petitioner to appear in the interview was wholly arbitrary. On the other hand MR. Ashok Parihar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-RPSC has invited our attention to the note appended in the Notification dated 29. 3. 93 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer a copy of which has been filed in the writ petition as Annexure R/1. In order to appreciate the controversy we would like to mention the aforesaid Notification dated 29. 3. 93 also as under: *** On the basis of the aforesaid note Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned counsel , for Respondent-RPSC contended that since the appellant-petitioner did not possess the degree of BSc. on the last dated fixed for submission of the application form his application shall be deemed to have been rejected for want of requisite educational qualification. A perusal of the note appended to the advertisement published in Rojgar Sandesh dated 15. 04. 1993 and the note appended to the original Notification issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission dated 29. 3. 93, it appears that certain words were omitted to be printed in the note appended to the advertisement published in Rojgar Sandesh dated 15. 04. 1993. Moreso, the reading of the said note in our opinion does not carry any meaning and even the said note does not strenghthen the case of the appellant- petitioner and even if there is some mistake committed in the publication in Rojgar Sandesh that in our opinion cannot confer any vested right in the petitioner to claim that he possess the requisite educational qualification on the last date fixed for submission of the application form which was the condition precedent for being considered for the post in question. Mr. P. S. Asopa, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that in view of Rule 20 (d) of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 no candidate shall be admitted to an examination unless he holds a certificate of admission to that examination granted by the commission and since the appellant- petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination the respondent should have allowed the appellant-petitioner to appear in the interview. In order to appreciate this submisssion made by Mr. P. S. Asopa, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner we would like to refer to Rule 20 (d)of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, which reads as under: " Admission to the examination- (1) The applications which are found to be incomplete and have not been filled in accordance with the instructions issued by the Commission shall be rejected by them at the initial stage. The commission shall permit rest of those candidates to appear in the examination provisionally to whom they consider it proper to grant the certificatie of admission. No candidate shall be admitted to an examination unless he holds a certificate of admission to that examination granted by the Commission. Before appearing at the examination it should be ensured by the candidate himself/herself that he/she fulfils the condition in regard to age, educational qualification, experience, number of chances, if any etc. as provided in the Rules. Being allowed to take the examination shall not entitle the candidate to presumption of eligibility. The Commission shall scrutinise later on the applications of such candidates only as qualify in the written examination and shall call only the eligible candidates to viva voce, if any. " The language used in the said Rule clearly mentions 'being allowed to take the examination shall not entitled the candidate to presumption of eligibility. Therefore, even if the appellant- petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination no presumption can be faised in favour of the appellant-petitioner regarding the eligibility. From the Notification issued by the RPSC it is crystal clear that the candidate must possess the requisite educational qualification on the last date fixed for submission of the application form. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to accept the contention putforth by Mr. P. S. Asopa. Lastly, Mr. P. S. Asopa in support of his contention heavily placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Rekha Chaturvedi V/s. University of Rajasthan & Ors. (l ). Before we express any opinion on the applicability of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (supra), we would like to refer briefly the facts of the said case : In the aforesaid case the petitioner had challenged the appointments ok 6 Assistant Professors (Lecturers) from general category in the Department of History in the University of Rajasthan. The University invited applications by its advertisement dated October 12, 1983 for appointment to 10 posts for Assistant Professors (Lecturers ). The last date for submitting applications was November 14, 1983. Out of 112 applications received, the Scrutiny Committee of the University on April 25,1984 recommended 106 candidates for being interviewed the remaining six being found ineligible the posts. Out of 106 candidates so recommended, only 65 candidates appeared for interview, out of which the Scrutiny Committee selected 8 candidates. Out of 8, two were earmarked for the reserved posts. The selection of the aforesaid 6 candidates was challenged in the aforesaid case. It appears that there was a divergence in the qualifications as per the University Ordinance (as quoted in the written submissions of the University) and the qualifications as per the advertisement as stated in the rejoinder of the petitioner. The University produced neither the Ordinance nor the advertisement. The further fact which is noticible in the said case is that the Scrutiny Committee had also power of relaxation in the qualifications. The most glaring fact of the said case is that the candidates who had been selected had already been appointed in February, 1985 and they had been working ever since till date. Some of them were also due for promotion to the higher posts in the near future and it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the selection of the candidates might be defective the Court should not interfere at delayed stage. In the aforesaid case the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines for future selection process regarding the Lecturers of the University. One of the guideline laid down by the Apex Court is that : the candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by candidates after the said date should not be taken into consideration, as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. On the other hand. Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned counsel , for Respondent- RPSC contents that the facts of the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (supra) are entirely deferent from the pacts of the present case. In the instant case there is no variance in the advertisement issued by the RPSC and the contention of Mr. P. S. Asopa, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the appellant-petitioner has been declared successful in the written examination is wholly false as according to Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned counsel , for Respondent-RPSC the result of the appellant-petitioner of the written examination has not been declared. ;