Dausa (Raj.) v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Skill Planning And

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Skill Planning And Entrepreneurships Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director, Directorate General Of Training (DGT), Government Of India, Employment Exchange Building Pusa Complex, IARI, New Delhi. 110012.

3. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education (Training), E-6, Residence Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

4. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krishi Prabandhan Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. G.K. Gouttam For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 03/09/2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against letter/communication dated 01.07.2025 by the Officer-In-charge of the recruitment, Technical Education Department, Jodhpur, whereby candidature of the petitioner for the post of Junior Instructor (Mechanical Diesel) has been rejected on account of not submitting valid permanent licence issued upto the last date of submitting application form. [2025:RJ-JP:35724] (2 of 8) [CW-12288/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board issued an advertisement dated 11.03.2024 for inviting applications from all eligible persons for the post of Junior Instructor from different trades. The petitioner submitted his application, applying against the post of Junior Instructor (Mechanical Diesel). It reveals from clauses of advertisement, in particular those related to Clause-6 of the advertisement, that the candidates were required to possess valid permanent licence to apply for heavy motor vehicle till the last date of submitting application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although it has not been mentioned in the pleadings of the writ petition yet, he has indicated from his representation dated

03.07.2025 (Annexure-7) that the date of issuance of licence to the petitioner was 13.05.2024. Learned counsel also submits that although last date for submitting application form was

11.04.2024, yet the advertisement itself provided for making necessary changes in the application form itself, which grants liberty to the respective candidates to make correction in the application form within a period of seven days from the last date of submitting the application form.

4. Thus, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could have amended his application form till 18.04.2025 and accordingly, within such period, he made correction regarding his duly issued valid permanent licence for applying for a heavy motor vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that inspite of the corrections made by him, and even after fulfilling the requirement of submitting licence, in a quite [2025:RJ-JP:35724] (3 of 8) [CW-12288/2025] arbitrarily manner, the respondents have rejected his application form only on the ground that such licence was not submitted by the last date of filling of application form.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the Clause-17 of the advertisement in order to submit that since seven days' time was prescribed to make corrections in the application form and accordingly, the petitioner corrected his application form, hence, in such circumstances, it was not a justified action of the respondents to reject his application form.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that as per Note 3 mentioned at internal page No.30 of the advertisement (Annexure-1) dated 11.03.2024, the candidates were required to possess the prescribed educational qualification till the date of examination whereas in the instant case the petitioner has admittedly acquired the licence on 13.05.2024 i.e., much before the date of examination. Hence, rejection of candidature of the petitioner is against the terms and conditions of the advertisement shown in aforesaid Note 3 at internal page No.30 of advertisement.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also emphasised that the eligibility conditions for the post of Junior Instructor should be in consonance with the guidelines given by Director General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, which do not provide the requirement to possess licence to drive heavy motor vehicles and requirement is merely to possess licence for driving light motor vehicles.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that pursuant to such guidelines, advertisement was issued by the [2025:RJ-JP:35724] (4 of 8) [CW-12288/2025] Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission requiring the candidates to possess valid LMV driving licence, wherein in the instant case, the requirement of possessing heavy duty licence shown in the advertisement is contrary to the guidelines of Directorate General of Training (DGT).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babulal Kumawat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1657/2017) decided on 03.11.2017 in support of his contentions that even if the candidates possess qualification (certificate of RS-CIT in that case) till the last date of examination, then such candidates should be treated as eligible candidates.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

11. It would be relevant to refer to the clauses with regard to eligibility and educational qualifications for the post of Junior Instructor (Engineering Trade and Maintenance Mechanic) which has been given in Clause-6; and Note 1 appended to Clause-6 reads as under: मैकेननक मैकेननक कृनष मशीनरी/ "1. ट्ेकर/ ट्ेड के नलये, की अनुजनत होनी चानहएA पमाण- पत (Heavy Driving Licence) नतनथ तक जारीको ही मान नकया जायेगाA" मोटरयान/मैकेननक डीजल/मैकेननक मैकेननक ड्ाइवर सह मैकेननक उनके पास यातायात नवभाग से भारी यान चालन उक भारी वाहन चालन साई अनुजा आवेदन की अंनतम

12. Thus, it is clear that the candidates submitting application for the post of Junior Instructor (Mechanical) were [2025:RJ-JP:35724] (5 of 8) [CW-12288/2025] required to possess valid licence for driving heavy motor vehicle till the last date of filling of application form.

13. The petitioner has referred Note 3 at internal Page No.30 of the advertisement (Annexure-1) in order to show that the advertisement prescribes that candidates were required to possess educational qualification till the date of examination. However, this Court observes that such note is relevant only for the post of Junior Instructor (Non-Engineering Trade) (post code No.14 & 15) and not for the post relating to engineering trade. Even otherwise, aforesaid Note 3 refers to educational qualification, whereas Note 1 appended to Clause-6 specifically mentions about possessing licence to drive heavy motor vehicle and same is required to be possessed till the last date of submitting application form. Thus, the submission made by the petitioner in this regard is totally misconceived and against the record.

14. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conditions of the advertisement relating to possessing licence to drive heavy motor vehicle is against the guidelines of Directorate General of Training, it is sufficient to observe that the recruitment in the instant case is being governed by the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the Rules of 1975'), which prescribes the essential academic and technical qualifications in the Schedule appended to the Rules in the following manner: [2025:RJ-JP:35724] (6 of 8) [CW-12288/2025] S. No. Name of Post Method of recruitment percentage Minimum qualification experience recruitment direct Post from promotion is to be Remarks Minimu m qualificat ion and experien promotio n 1

3. 2 3 4 Junior Instructor (Engineering Trade and Maintenance Mechanic) (L-10) 100% direct recruitment out of which (i) 50% reserved for NTC/NAC holders and (ii) 50% reserved for Degree/Advan ced Diploma holders. (A) Academic: Secondary with Physics, Chemistry Mathematics as optional subject scheme from a recognized Board or its equivalent examination. Secondary under 10+2 scheme from a recognized Board or its equivalent examination. 5 - 6 - 7

1. For Trade Mech. Motor Vehicle/Mech. Diesel/ Mech. Tractor/ Mech. Agriculture Machinery/ Mech. Driver cum Mechanic should posses a license Heavy Vehicle Driving from Transport Department (emphasis supplied)

15. Thus, the aforesaid Rules makes it abundantly clear that the Junior Instructor (Engineering Trade and Maintenance Mechanic) is required to possess a licence for driving heavy vehicle from the Transport Department. The aforesaid Rules are not under challenge in the instant writ petition. Thus, it is clear that the respondents are carrying out the recruitment strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1975.

16. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the advertisement issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and Jharkhand Public Service Commission is irrelevant in view of the specific Rules framed by the respondent-Government.

17. Bare perusal of Clause-17 of the advertisement would reveal that liberty was granted to the candidates to make [2025:RJ-JP:35724] (7 of 8) [CW-12288/2025] corrections in educational qualification, name, father's name, date of birth and category etc. However, mere granting such liberty to make correction in the application form does not mean that the person who was not eligible on the last date of submitting application form would become eligible, by merely making correction in the application form by submitting a licence, which was admittedly not issued till the last date of submitting the application form.

18. In order to acquire eligibility for submitting the application form for the post of Junior Instructor in Diesel Mechanical Trade, the candidate was required to possess the valid licence issued upto last date of submitting application form which was admittedly 11.04.2024. In case, there was some error in submitting the valid licence already issued upto last date of submitting an application form, then only in such cases, the corrections could have conferred eligibility upon him, but not in those cases where the petitioner was not possessing the eligibility document till the last date of submitting application form.

19. It is settled proposition of law that eligibility for the purposes of recruitment has to be determined with reference to the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement, which is the last date fixed for submitting the application form in the instant case. The provision enabling the candidate to carry out corrections or modifications in the particulars of the application form at a later stage is intended only to rectify clerical errors or inadvertent mistakes. Such facility cannot be construed as extending or relaxing the cut-off date itself for acquiring the requisite eligibility. Consequently, if a candidate secures or obtains the essential [2025:RJ-JP:35724] (8 of 8) [CW-12288/2025] qualification, licence or certificate only after the last date of submitting the application form, then only because the correction window remains open, thereafter, it would not confer upon the candidate for any eligibility. Possession of a license or qualification acquired after the prescribed cut-off date, even if, within the permissible period for making corrections in the form, does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, since the substantive requirement of law is that the candidate must be fully eligible on the last date of submission of the application.

20. The judgment of Babulal Kumawat (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is altogether different on facts where the clauses of advertisement were altogether different and it was mentioned in the advertisement itself that the candidates appearing in the final examination of the course which is requisite educational qualification, can also appear in the recruitment process. Under these circumstances, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the candidates obtaining RS-CIT certificate even till the date of examination could be considered as eligible. The clause of advertisement in the instant case as well as the prevailing Rules are altogether different. Hence, the aforesaid judgment of Babulal Kumawat (supra) is of no help to the petitioner.

21. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

22. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. DAKSH/33 (ANAND SHARMA),J