S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5836/2007 (Sunita Kumari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr.) Date of order: 9th October 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Hanuman Singh for Mr.P.S.Bhati for the petitioner By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following main reliefs:- ''A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the counseling which is likely to begin by allowing her to submit her mark sheet on the day of counseling. B/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the criteria laid down by the respondents of the cut off date may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to amend the criteria to a reasonable date i.e. date of counseling for submission of mark sheet and the petitioner may be allowed to submit her mark sheet on the day of counseling and she may be give the appointment if found eligible on merits.'' The reliefs aforesaid have been claimed by the petitioner in the background of the facts that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement dated 30.10.2006 (Annex. 1) inviting applications from the eligible candidates for written examination for selections to the post of Primary and Upper Primary School teacher. The competitive examination was scheduled to be held in the month of February, 2007; and the last date for submission of the application form was 16.12.2006. The advertisement 1 Annexure-1 prescribed the requisite educational qualification in the manner that a candidate must have a certificate of Senior Secondary School Examination or Intermediate or equivalent examination with Diploma or Certificate in Elementary Teachers Training of a duration not less than two years or Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) or Graduation with B.Ed. or equivalent; and the advertisement stipulated that the applicant should possess the requisite educational qualification by the last date of submission of the application forms i.e., 16.12.2006. In response to the advertisement aforesaid, the petitioner offered her candidature in the category of Scheduled Tribe Female candidate; and, according to the petitioner, the eligibility criteria of applying under the said advertisement was of the candidate possessing the qualification of B.Ed./BSTC but after some time, the candidates undergoing such courses were also given a chance to appear in the selection process. The petitioner has averred that she participated in the selection process having been allotted Roll No.438207 and secured 62.67 marks; but was shocked to know about the arbitrary condition imposed by the respondents where a cut-off date was declared and, whereby, only those candidates would be eligible for further selection whose result of B.Ed. Examination has been declared before such cut-off date. 2 According to the petitioner, counseling for further selection is due yet and thus, the cut-off date declared by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary which would debar many candidates from appearing in the final selection process. The petitioner has pointed out that the result of her B.Ed. Examination was declared on 21.07.2007. Arguing for the petitioner, learned counsel has stressed on the submissions that the so-called cut-off date has no rational relationship with the process of selection and eligibility of the candidate; that the criterion adopted by the respondents are entirely irrational and are not befitting the process of selection undertaken by a welfare State; that even from the alleged cut-off date, more than six months have passed and the process of selection is yet continuing and there is no reason why the respondents would not accept the mark-sheet of the petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Thimmappa and others Vs. Chairman Central Bd. of Dirs., SBI and another: AIR 2001 SC 467. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is clearly of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and this petition does not merit admission. The fundamental of the principle that a person desirous 3 to be appointed on a specific post is required to possess eligibility on the date his candidature is to be considered, cannot be taken any more of doubt or debate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others: (2007) 4 SCC 54 has been pleased to deal with the proposition of law in this regard in sufficient detail and has pointed out the necessity of providing cut-off date for determination of eligibility particularly in relation to the educational qualification in any recruitment that in order to avoid uncertainties in such matters, fixation of a cut-off date is a must; and the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for putting in the application must be considered as cut-off date. The Hon'ble Court has held,- ''Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application.'' The submission as made on behalf of the petitioner questioning the rationale behind such requirement of a cut-off date, therefore, remains contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and is required to be rejected. 4 The question relating to cut-off date for the selection process under the very same advertisement Annexure-1 has been dealt with by this Court on 04.07.2007 in the batch of petitions led by the case of Parmeshwar Patidar & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & others: S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1817/2007; and, after finding that the respondents have fixed the date of declaration of the result of written examination as such cut-off date, this court has rejected the prayer for permitting the candidates to submit proof of their educational qualification acquired later than the cut-off date. This Court has taken note of the situation arising due to non-declaration of result or non-conducting of the examination of a particular course by the stipulated date; and though finding that there was no fault in the candidate, this Court observed that it may not give any right to the candidate to claim consideration of the candidature because on the date of declaration of result of the selection test, the candidate neither possessed the requisite qualification nor submitted proof thereof. This Court has said,- ''Non-conducting the examination of Teacher's Training or non-declaration of the result thereof by the stipulated date is certainly no fault on the part of the petitioners, but certainly it does not give right to the petitioners to claim consideration of their candidature for the post in question as on the date of declaration of the result of the competitive examination, the petitioners neither possess the requisite educational qualification of Teacher's Training nor submitted the proof of 5 having qualified the teacher's training course which was a condition precedent while allowing them to apply and appear in the competitive examination held by the respondent-RPSC. Merely allowing the petitioners to apply and appear in the competitive examination for the post in question does not provide them any right to claim consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post in question without possessing requisite educational qualification as advertised and provided in the relevant rules.'' The aspects aforesaid have been noticed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4468/2007: Basant Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & others on 22.08.2007 relating to the same selection process wherein, again, the petitioner submitted that his B.Ed. result was declared on 29.06.2007 and urged that the selection process being yet not complete, he was entitled to be considered. With reference to the aforesaid decisions in Ashok Kumar Sonkar and Parmeshwar Patidar, while rejecting the contention of the petitioner, this Court has noticed the fact that a corrigendum was issued by the respondents in conformity with proviso to Rule 266 (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 whereby a relaxation was given to the extent that if a person who had appeared or was appearing in the examination of BSTC or B.Ed. etc. he could also apply for the said competitive examination but with the stipulation that he shall have to produce the proof of having acquired the qualification before 6 declaration of result of the competitive examination. Reading the original advertisement and corrigendum together, this Court observed,- ''While reading the original advertisement and corrigendum together, it is but apparent that respondent have consciously provided the requirement that the candidate must possess requisite qualification by the last date of filing of the applications; and merely relaxed the requirement to the extent that the candidates who had appeared in B.S.T.C./ B.Ed. examination shall also be entitled to apply under the said advertisement but declared the cut-off date in no uncertain terms that such candidates shall have to submit proof of acquiring qualification before declaration of the result of the competitive examination. The result of the said competitive examination was declared on 16.03.2007, and that became obviously the cut-off date prior to which the candidate was required to acquire the necessary qualification. It is an admitted position that the petitioner could not acquire such qualification even by that date of declaration of result i.e., 16.03.2007 inasmuch as the result of his B.Ed. examination was declared only on 29.06.2007. Obviously, the petitioner was not eligible on the date of declaration of result, the cut-off date for the present purpose; and is not entitled for any relief.'' The submission that the respondents have yet not completed the selection process and, therefore, the cut-off date for the purpose of acquiring eligibility is also at large is far-too stretched and is totally misconceived. For the purpose of cut-off date for the present process of selection, relevant is the date of declaration of result of ‘the competitive examination’; and such result was declared on 16.03.2007, as 7 noticed by this court in Parmeshwar Patidar and Basant Lal (supra). The process thereafter is only towards finalization of the select list of eligible candidates; and has no bearing on the cut-off date for acquiring eligibility. If, for any reason, the respondent have not finalized the selection process yet, it cannot be said that a different, rather extended, cut-off date would come into being; or that any candidate could walk in any time whenever he would acquire basic qualification. The submissions of the petitioner, if accepted, would mean that there would be no cut-off date for determining eligibility of candidates; and that would render the entire selection process absolutely uncertain. The suggestion as made on behalf of the petitioner remains contrary to the fundamental principles governing the case. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), there has to be “a” cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates. There cannot be multiple cut-off dates for the same selection process; nor the selection process could be undertaken with such uncertainty that there be no cut-off date at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision in K.Thimmappa (supra). The said case essentially dealing with the principles relating to reasonable classification has got absolutely no relevance or applicability to the fact 8 situation of the present case and the questions sought to be raised. A feeble suggestion that the respondent have permitted some other candidates to submit the certificates after declaration of result is neither of any specific pleading nor carries any meaning. It is not the case of the petitioner that any candidate having acquired qualification beyond cut-off date has been considered. The petition remains totally bereft of substance and is, therefore, rejected in limine. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK 9