‘Eligibility depends on application date, not later degrees’: Supreme Court denies relief to law students over state jobs

“A conjoint reading of the advertisement and the governing rules makes it evident that the relevant date for determining eligibility, including educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application. This is for the reason that the eligibility of a candidate is assessed on the basis of the particulars and documents furnished at the time of application, and there is no provision for subsequent supplementation or re-submission of such documents at a later stage,” the May 4 Supreme Court order noted.

Justice Vikram Nath did not agree with the high court’s view that if two interpretations of the rules were possible, the one that favours the candidates should be chosen. (AI-enhanced image)

Eligibility on date of submitting application 

The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the relevant date for acquiring the minimum essential qualification was the date of submission of the application pursuant to the advertisement, or any time before the commencement of the interview process.

The essential educational qualification prescribed under the advertisement required a candidate to possess a law or an integrated law degree from a university established by law in India, the Supreme Court noted. 

It was observed that the seventh clause in the advertisement clearly specified that an initially admitted application was liable to be cancelled upon detection of ineligibility on account of age, educational qualification, or other prescribed conditions. 

The Supreme Court established from reading the advertisement and the governing rules together that determining the eligibility, including educational qualification, was based on the submission of the application, and therefore, there was no provision for resubmission or late submission of the requisite documents.

Ad allowed only one interpretation: Court 

• The Supreme Court did not align with the high court’s view that if two interpretations of the rules were possible, the one that favours the candidates should be chosen.
• An approach based on considerations of enlarging the pool of candidates or promoting competition could not be invoked when the advertisement allowed only one interpretation. 
• The prescribed eligibility condition unequivocally required possession of the degree at the relevant point in time, the Supreme Court underlined.
• Accepting the respondent’s contention by approving the eligibility of the candidates qualifying anytime before the interview would create an uncertain selection process and would warrant an unnecessary administrative burden on the RPSC to track such later qualifications. 

Candidates with no LLB degree

• On March 7, 2024, the applicant, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), issued an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of assistant prosecution officer. 
• Pursuant to that, the respondents who had not yet obtained their degree and were to appear for their final-year examination submitted their online application forms.
• On November 19, 2024, a press note issued by the Rajasthan PSC  communicated that the preliminary examination was scheduled to be held on January 19, 2025. 
• Subsequently, by another press note on November 29, 2024, the RPSC clarified that under the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, candidates who were appearing in the final year, or who had not acquired the requisite qualification as on the date of the examination, were not eligible to participate in the selection process. 
• The respondents did not possess an LLB degree as of the last date for submission of online applications. They acquired the requisite qualification on August 22, 2024.
  
• The aggrieved respondents moved the Rajasthan High Court seeking a direction to the RPSC to permit them to participate in the selection process.
  
• On January 15, 2025, the high court allowed their petitions and directed the RPSC to issue admit cards to the writ petitioners and permit them to appear in the preliminary examination.
• Dissatisfied, the RPSC appealed to the high court, but the court affirmed the earlier decision allowing them to sit for the examination.