PRAKASH CHAND MEENA & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

                    [2015] 3 S.C.R. 729


           PRAKASH CHAND MEENA & ORS.                          A
                             v.
             STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

          (Civil appeal Nos. 3057-3058 of 2015)                B
                     MARCH 19, 2015
    [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]


     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
                                                                     B
    SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties. Leave granted.
     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         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.
B
         (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. III
    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. III 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.