Summary
For recruitment of Assistant Prosecution Officers in Rajasthan, eligibility, including possession of the law degree, is judged on the date of submission of the application. Candidates who obtained the degree after applying but before the examination were not eligible, because the proviso to Rule 12 that once allowed final-year candidates had been deleted.
Issues
- Whether the relevant date for possessing the minimum essential qualification is the date of submission of the application, or any later date before the examination or interview.
- Whether the RPSC press notes of 19.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 altered the eligibility conditions mid-process.
- Whether the interpretation favourable to candidates should be preferred where the advertisement is said to admit of two readings.
Provisions considered
- Rule 12 (Academic qualification) and its deleted proviso, Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978Rule 12 requires a direct recruit to possess the prescribed qualification. Its proviso, which allowed final-year candidates to apply subject to later proof, was deleted by notification dated 10.10.2002; the Court read the deletion as showing that candidates without the qualification on the relevant date cannot apply. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Held
- Read together, the advertisement and the governing Rules make the date of submission of the application the relevant date for eligibility, including educational qualification, because eligibility is assessed on the particulars furnished with the application and there is no provision for later supplementation. (¶¶ 18, 25)
- Deletion of the proviso to Rule 12, which had exempted candidates appearing in the final-year examination, shows a clear intent that candidates who have not acquired the qualification on the relevant date are not eligible; what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, and the requirement to 'possess' the degree excludes those who acquire it later. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The press note of 29.11.2024 did not change the rules of the game; it was consistent with the Rules and the advertisement and merely clarified that eligibility is determined on the date of application. (¶¶ 22, 25)
- The principle of preferring the interpretation favourable to candidates, to enlarge the pool or promote competition, cannot be invoked where the advertisement admits of only one clear reading; treating qualifications acquired up to the interview as sufficient would also create uncertainty and administrative burden. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
Appeals allowed; common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 12.08.2025 (affirming the Single Judge) set aside.