Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Single Judge’s Order; Candidate Cannot Claim Eligibility On Undisclosed Qualification After Recruitment Closure
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Rajasthan High Court Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta set aside the Single Judge’s order that had directed authorities to consider a candidate’s undisclosed graduation mark-sheet for appointment as Teacher Grade-III (Level-I). The Bench allowed the State’s appeal, holding that the recruitment process must rely solely on the information and documents submitted in the application form and that a candidate cannot later seek eligibility based on qualifications not disclosed at the relevant time. The Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the applicant’s omission to mention the graduation qualification could not be treated as a basis for claiming eligibility at a belated stage.
The matter arose from a special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the order of the Single Judge who had directed authorities to consider the respondent’s candidature for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-I) on the basis of his graduation mark-sheet. The respondent had earlier filed a writ petition claiming eligibility for the post on the strength of having secured 64.67% in the REET examination, despite possessing only 44.15% marks in his Senior Secondary examination. He asserted that obtaining more than the REET cut-off was sufficient and that he had been wrongly denied appointment.
The State opposed the writ petition stating that the advertisement prescribed different eligibility pathways under Clause 9.2, and the respondent had applied under the category requiring at least 45% marks in Senior Secondary along with a two-year diploma in Elementary Education. According to the application submitted by him, he did not meet this minimum requirement, and no graduation mark-sheet or graduation marks were disclosed at the time of form submission.
The first writ petition remained pending for over two and a half years, after which the respondent sought to withdraw it with liberty to file afresh. The second writ petition was filed without attaching the advertisement, though it had been filed earlier, and the respondent claimed for the first time that he possessed a graduation mark-sheet which existed prior to the advertisement. He sought consideration of this qualification and also requested relaxation on the ground of belonging to the OBC category.
The State argued that the respondent had not disclosed the graduation qualification in either the application form or the earlier writ petition, and that such delayed disclosure raised doubts about the authenticity of the document. It maintained that scrutiny of eligibility must be strictly based on the information submitted at the time of application, and no subsequent qualification could be entertained long after recruitment closure.
The Court recorded that “in the earlier writ petition filed by the present petitioner, there was no mention whatsoever of his possessing any alternate eligibility qualification.” It noted that the respondent’s case in that petition was based solely on his REET marks and his claim that despite securing less than 45% in Senior Secondary, he should be treated as eligible. The Bench observed that “there was not even a single reference to the existence of any alternate eligibility qualification” and held that “after a lapse of two and a half years, a candidate cannot be permitted to come out and claim that what he has not submitted in his application form as an eligibility qualification inadvertently, then the same may be considered.”
The Court stated that such permission “cannot be granted to an individual candidate” and that allowing it “would set wrong precedent in matters of recruitment.” It further recorded that the respondent did not place the advertisement on record in the second writ petition despite having done so earlier. From the advertisement, the Court reproduced Clause 9.2 showing the various eligibility pathways, noting that the respondent had applied under the category requiring 45% in Senior Secondary and had not invoked the graduation-based eligibility at any stage.
The Bench then referred to Note (II) of Clause 12 and concluded that the respondent, despite clear instructions, “neither submitted any graduation mark-sheet nor provided the marks obtained in graduation” and that his application reflected eligibility only on the basis of Senior Secondary marks.
The Court stated that after scrutiny, the appellants rightly found him ineligible because “he had obtained less than 45% marks in the Senior Secondary examination.” It rejected the plea that posts remaining vacant justified later submission of documents, stating such a request “cannot be countenanced or permitted.”
On the petitioner’s reliance on case law, the Court observed that the Som Singh decision concerned relaxation for ST candidates in TSP areas, whereas the respondent belonged to OBC and had earlier claimed candidature under the General category. Regarding Neeraj Kumar Patidar, the Court stated that the facts were distinguishable because in that case the candidate had disclosed his graduation qualification at the time of filing.
The Bench recorded that the graduation mark-sheet produced in the later petition, allegedly from Sunrise University, “was neither disclosed at the time of submitting the application form nor at the time of filing Writ Petition No. 8447/2018.”
The Court ordered that “the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent-herein is dismissed. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Ayush Gehlot
For the Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Naresh Chandra Patel
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:44123-DB
Case Number: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 84/2022
Bench: Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Justice Bipin Gupta
