PRAKASH CHAND MEENA & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 729, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 729 
PRAKASH CHAND MEENA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Civil appeal Nos. 3057-3058 of 2015) 
MARCH 19, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Recruitment - Advertiseme[lt for two C 
different posts, having different qualifications- In the midway. 
the State Government as well as the Public Service 
Commission changing the qualification for the posts -
Permissibility -
Held: Recruitment process must be 
completed as per tenns and conditions in the advertisement D 
and as per rules existing when the recruitment process began 
- The equivalent qualification must be recognized as such 
in the recruitment rules or Government Order existing on or 
before initiation of recruitment process - In the present case, E 
the State Government as well as the Commission departed 
from the qualification laid down in the advertisement as well 
as the rules -
Hence recruitment on the basis of 
subsequently changed qualification, not pennissible. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court · 
F 
HELD: 1. Recruitment process must be completed 
as per terms and conditions in the advertisement and 
as per rules existing when the recruitment process 
'began. In the present case, the Division Bench has gone G 
to great lengths in examining the issue whether B.P.Ed. 
and D.P.Ed. qualifications are equivalent or superior to 
C.P.Ed. qualification but such exercise cannot help the 
cause of the respondents who had the option either to 
cancel the
recruitment process if there existed good H 
729
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
reasons for the same or to complete it as per terms of 
advertisement and as per rules. They chose to continue 
with the recruitment process and hence they cannot be 
permitted to depart from the qualification laid down in 
the advertisement as well as in the rules which were 
B suitably amended only. later in 2011. In such a situation, 
.factual justifications cannot change the legal position 
that respondents acted against law and againstthe terms 
of advertisement in treating such applicants successful 
C for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.Ill who held other 
qualifications but not the qualification of C.P.Ed. Such 
candidates had not even submitted separate OMR 
application form for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.Ill 
which was essential as per the terms of advertisement. 
D [Para 9] [735-A-E] 
2. In the matter of eligibility qualification, the 
equivalent qualification must be recognized as such in 
the recruitment rules or Government order existing on 
or before the initiation of recruitment process. In the 
E present case, this process was initiated through 
advertisement inviting application which did not indicate 
that equivalent or higher qualification holders were 
eligible to apply nor the equivalent qualifications were 
F reflected in the recruitment rules or Government Orders 
of the relevanttime. [Para 10] [735-H, 736-A-B] 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil. Appeal Nos. 
3057-3058 of 2015. 
· ·From the
Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2013 of the 
G High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D. 
B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 1157 & 1181 of2012. 
M. R. Calla, Vijay Hansaria, Pratiksha Sharma, Ankit 
Acharya, Subodh Pathak, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Akhilesh 
H Kumar Pandey, Swati Chandra, Anjul Dwivedi, Sarad Kumar
PRAKASH CHAND MEENAv. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 731 
Singhania, H. D. Thanvi, Mukul Kumar, Surya Kant, Aishwarya A 
Bhati, Anshuman, Madhurima Ghosh, Hemendra Sharma, S. 
S. Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Ruchi Kohli, 
Arjun Harkauli, Aftab Ali Khan for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
parties. Leave granted. 
B 
2. The issue in these appeals is whether the Division 
Bench of Rajasthan High Court is correct in reversing the 
judgment of the learned Single Judge and permitting the C 
qualification of B.P.Ed. to be treated as.equivalent to 
qualification of C.P.Ed. for the purpose of selection and 
recruitment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade-Ill 
(PTI Gr.Ill). 
D 
3. The facts necessary for deciding the main issue noted 
above are as follows. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 
(hereinafter referre1 to as 'the Commission') published an 
advertisement dated 03.09.2008 inviting applications for 
recruitment to the post of PTI Gr.II under Code No.35 and PTI 
E 
Gr. Ill under Code No.36. The educational qualification for posts 
under Code No.35 and 36 were indicated separately and read 
thus: 
"(i) Graduate or equivalent examination with diploma 
F 
in physical education OR Secondary with four years' 
diploma in Physical Education. 
(ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari 
script and knowledge of Rajasthan culture. 
G 
The educational qualification for posts
under Code No.36 
read thus: 
(i) Senior secondary certificate of Board of Secondary 
Education recognized by the Government of 
H
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
B 
Rajasthan and Secondary or equivalent examination 
recognized by the Government of Rajasthan with five 
subjects, three of them should be Mathematics, 
English and Hindi with Certificate in Physical 
Education. 
(ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari 
script and knowledge of Rajasthan culture. 
C 
Special note in the advertisement indicated that in Column 
11 of OMR application the post of Code No.35 or Code No.36 
had to be mentioned and separate applications had to be 
submitted for the two different categories of posts. Through a 
press note issued on 22.09.2009, the Commission informed 
D the applicants to indicate the post code clearly in the OMR 
application and in the event of any error in specifying the post 
code, the result of such candidate shall be cancelled. 
4. A combined competitive examination for both the posts 
was held on 04.10.2009. The Commission, by letter issued 
E 
on 04.12.2009, directed the candidates to submit their 
testimonials/documents by 04th January 2010. On 18.12.2009 
a news item was published in a daily newspaper that the State 
Government had directed the Commission to treat such 
F 
candidates also eligible for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. I II 
who possess Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) and/or 
Degree of Bachelor in Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) on the 
premise that these qualifications should be treated as higher 
than or equal to Certificate in Physical
Education (C.P.Ed.). 
G For this purpose, the State Government sent a letter to the 
Commission on 06.01.2010 and thereafter the Commission 
declared the result on 29.10.2010 wherein it declared such 
applicants also as successful for the post of PTI Gr.Ill who held 
the qualification of BP.Ed. and had applied for appointment 
H to the post of PTI Gr.II only.
PRAKASH CHAND MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 733 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
5. Applicants for the post of PTI Gr. I I I having qualification A 
of C.P.Ed. were aggrieved with the clarification issued by the 
State Government and the result declared by the Commission 
on its basis and hence they preferred writ petitions which were 
allowed on three different occasions. Twice, the Division Bench 
allowed the Special Appeals only to remand the matter to the B 
learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. The second 
remand was on the basis of an amendment made in the 
Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for 
brevity, 'the Rules of 1971') vide notification dated 09.12.2011. C 
The Division Bench, by its judgment dated 30th March 2012, 
observed thatamendment made in the Rules of 1971 was not 
brought to the notice of the Single Bench and, therefore, by 
agreement of the parties, it set aside the impugned order and 
matter was remitted to the Single Bench for deciding again D 
for the third time. The learned Single Judge found that the 
amendment vide notification dated 09.12.2011 was 
prospective and, therefore, it could have no bearing on the 
recruitment process initiated on the basis of advertisement 
issued on 03.09.2008. Accordingly, the writ petitions came to E 
be allowed for the third time by the learned Single Judge vide 
judgment dated 04.07.2012. That judgment has been set 
aside by the impugned order dated 01.07.2013 which is under 
; challenge in these
appeals. 
I 
F 
I 
6. On behalf of the appellants, reliance has been placed 
' upon judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge on three 
' occasions. Their main contention is that learned Single Judge 
had taken a correct view in law that once advertisement had 
· been issued and recruitment process had begun by asking G 
for separate applications for the two different posts having 
different qualifications, the State Government as well as the 
Commission erred in changing the qualification midway 
through issuance of a letter on the ground that it was only to 
H
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A clarify the actual position pursuant to a query made by the 
Commission. It was pointed out that the relevant Rules of 1971 
which were the basis for the advertisement were amended 
only subsequently on 09.12.2011 and as per law settled by a 
catena of decisions by this Court, the rules which existed at 
B the time of issuance of advertisement shall govern the 
recruitment process and not the subsequently amended rules. 
7. In reply, the stand of the respondents is that the 
clarification issued by the State Government was only to explain 
c the factual position that qualification of B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. 
were either equivalent or superior to the qualification of C. P. Ed. 
and hence there was no illegality or arbitrariness in permitting 
holders of such equivalent or higher degrees to compete for 
the post of PTI Gr.Ill even if they did not have the precise 
D qualification of C.P.Ed. mentioned in the advertisement. 
8. It was also highlighted on behalf of the respondents that 
whereas there were only 62 posts of PTI Gr. II, there were 405 
posts of PTI Gr. Ill advertised and as against such large number 
E of 405 posts there were only limited number of applicants 
having qualification of C.P.Ed. and, therefore, permitting 
applicants having higher or equivalent qualifications was a 
rational and proper decision. According to appellants also 
there are only 231 applicants having C.P.Ed. qualification 
F against405 vacancies for
the posts of PTI Gr.Ill. 
9. Having heard the parties, we have also perused the 
written submissions filed on behalf of some of them and have 
perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the 
G impugned judgment of the Division Bench. In our considered 
view, the issue noticed at the outset must be decided on the 
basis of settled law noticed by learned Single Bench that 
recruitment process must be completed as per terms and 
conditions in the advertisement and as per rules existing when 
H the recruitment process began. In the present case, the
PRAKASH CHAND MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 735 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
Division Bench has gone to great lengths in examining the A 
issue whether B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. qualifications are equivalent 
or superior to C.P.Ed. qualification but such exercise cannot 
help the cause of the respondents who had the option either to 
cancel the recruitment process if there existed good reasons 
for the same or to complete it as per terms of advertisement B 
and as per rules. They chose to continue with the recruitment 
process and hence they cannot be permitted to depart from 
the qualification laid down in the advertisement as well as in 
the rules which were suitably amended only later in 2011. In C 
such a situation, factual justifications cannot change the legal 
position that respondents acted against law and against the 
terms of advertisement in treating such applicants successful 
for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.Ill who held other 
qualifications but not the qualification of C.P.Ed. Such D 
candidates had not even submitted separate OMR application 
form for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. Ill which was essential 
as per the terms of advertisement. 
10. 
The candidates who were aware of the 
advertisement and did not have the qualification of C.P.Ed. 
E 
also had two options, either to apply only for PTI Gr.II if they 
had the necessary qualification for that post or to challenge 
the advertisement that it omitted to mention equivalent or higher 
qualification along
with qualification of C.P.Ed. for the post of F 
PTI Gr.Ill. Having not challenged the advertisement and having 
applied for the other post, they could not have subsequently 
claimed or be granted eligibility on the basis of equivalence 
clarified or declared subsequently by the State Government. 
In the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent G 
qualification must be recognized as such in the recruitment 
rules or Government order existing on or before the initiation 
of recruitment process. In the present case, this process was 
initiated through advertisement inviting application which did 
H

736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A not indicate that equivalent or higher qualification holders were 
eligible to apply nor the equivalent qualifications were reflected 
in the recruitment rules or Government Orders of the relevant 
time. 
B 
11. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view the Division 
Bench erred in interfering with the judgment of the learned 
Single Judge who had correctly allowed the writ petitions filed 
against the result declared by the Commission on the basis of 
State Government's letter dated 06. 01.2010. The impugned 
c judgment under appeal is, therefore, set aside and the judgment 
and order of the learned Single Judge is restored. That should 
be complied forthwith. The appeals are accordingly allowed 
but without any order as to costs. 
D 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals allowed.