The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the relevant date for acquiring minimum essential qualifications for recruitment is the date of submission of the application pursuant to the advertisement, rather than any date prior to the interview or examination, unless the rules expressly provide otherwise.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Rajasthan High Court judgment that had permitted candidates to appear in the Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO) examination despite not possessing the requisite Law degree at the time of application.
Issue for Consideration
The primary issue before the Apex Court was whether the relevant date for acquiring the minimum essential qualification is the date of submission of the application pursuant to the advertisement, or any time prior to the commencement of the interview process.
Background of the Case
On March 7, 2024, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement for 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer. The essential qualification required a Degree in Law (Professional) or an integrated Law Course.
The private respondents, who were law students at the time, submitted their applications. It was admitted that as of the date of submission, they had not acquired their degrees and were yet to appear in their final year examinations. They eventually acquired the qualification on August 22, 2024.
By press notes issued in November 2024, the RPSC clarified that candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualifications as of the last date of application were ineligible and should withdraw their forms. The respondents challenged this before the High Court. A Single Judge and subsequently a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the candidates, directing RPSC to permit them to participate in the preliminary examination.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning that guidelines should be interpreted in favor of enlarging the candidate pool. The Bench noted that the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, originally contained a proviso (Rule 12) granting exemptions to final-year students. However, this proviso was deleted by a notification dated October 10, 2002.
The Court observed:
“The legislative intent underlying such deletion is clear and unambiguous, namely, that candidates who have not acquired the requisite educational qualification as on the relevant date are not eligible to apply for the post in question.”
Regarding the interpretation of the advertisement, the Court applied the legal maxim “aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” (what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly). The Court held that the requirement to “possess” a degree necessarily excludes those who acquire it at a future date.
The Bench further noted:
“The prescribed eligibility condition unequivocally requires possession of the degree at the relevant point of time. Even otherwise, acceptance of the respondents’ contention… would introduce uncertainty into the selection process and impose an unwarranted administrative burden upon the appellant-RPSC in tracking subsequent acquisitions of qualifications.”
The Court clarified that the press note issued by the RPSC on November 29, 2024, did not alter eligibility conditions mid-process but merely clarified the existing position under the governing 1978 Rules.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the RPSC and set aside the common judgment dated August 12, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The Court concluded that eligibility must be determined with reference to the date of submission of the application.
Case Details
- Case Title: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 32964 of 2025)
- Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Date of Judgment: May 04, 2026
