Rajasthan High Court | Website Instructions Incorporated in Advertisement Are Integral to Recruitment | Eligibility of Final-Year LL.B. Candidates Upheld Under Rajasthan Prosecution Service Rules
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Division Bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta, delivered a judgment on August 12, 2025, dismissing multiple special appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The court held that candidates who appeared in the final year of the LL.B. examination in 2024 but obtained their degrees later in the same year could not be denied eligibility, given the clear stipulation on the Commission’s website that such “appearing” candidates would be treated as eligible. The court directed that the impugned order of the Single Bench required no interference and concluded that the appeals were without merit.
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated March 7, 2024, for recruitment to 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer under the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. The selection process was divided into a preliminary examination followed by a written main examination. A dispute arose regarding the date by which candidates must have qualified with an LL.B. degree to be considered eligible.
The advertisement required: “Degree in Law (Professional) or integrated Law Course from a University established by law in India” and “Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthani dialects and social customs of Rajasthan.”
It further specified that the application period was from March 14, 2024, to April 12, 2024, with all instructions for applicants available on the Commission’s website. The advertisement provided that only those candidates possessing the prescribed qualification and experience up to the last date of application could apply.
On November 19, 2024, the Commission issued a corrigendum announcing the date of the preliminary examination as January 19, 2025, and allowing online corrections in candidates’ applications. It reiterated that conditions of the advertisement would remain unchanged but permitted candidates who had applied despite not having the prescribed qualification to withdraw their applications.
The appellants, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, argued that since the last date for applications was April 12, 2024, only those who had acquired the LL.B. degree by that date were eligible. They relied upon Rule 12 of the Rules of 1978 and cited precedents including Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court (2025 SC 463) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007 4 SCC 54), which established that eligibility should be determined with reference to the last date of submission of applications.
The respondents, however, pointed to the website instructions which expressly stated that candidates “appearing” in the final year examination were eligible to apply. They argued that their forms were accepted through the portal on this basis and that they subsequently completed their LL.B. degrees in 2024 itself. Counsel for the respondents cited multiple precedents, including State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa (Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019), Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Jat (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 12323 of 2020), Rameshwar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13295/2024), and others.
The Division Bench heard detailed submissions from both sides and examined the advertisement, corrigendum, statutory rules, and cited precedents.
The Bench observed that the central issue was the eligibility of candidates who appeared in the final year LL.B. examination in 2024 but obtained their degree after the last date of application. The court recorded: “This Court observes that the controversy arising in the instant appeal essentially pertains to the eligibility of candidates who had appeared in the final year of LL.B examination in 2024 but obtained their degrees subsequent to the last date of application, i.e., 12.04.2024.”
The appellants contended that eligibility must be determined strictly with reference to the last date of submission of applications. The respondents countered by relying on the corrigendum and online instructions. The court noted: “This Court further observes that while the appellant-RPSC has relied on the settled principle that eligibility must be determined with reference to the last date of submission of applications, the respondents have placed reliance upon the corrigendum dated 19.11.2024 as well as the online instructions uploaded on the Commission’s portal, which specifically permitted candidates ‘appearing’ in the final year to apply.”
The court clarified that the judgments in Sakshi Arha and Ashok Kumar Sonkar were relevant only where no specific clarification regarding the cut-off date existed. It stated: “The judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakshi Arha (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) are applicable only in cases where there is no specification or clarification regarding the last date for filing the qualification details.”
The Bench stated that the corrigendum and online instructions were integral to the advertisement itself: “It cannot be said that there was any midstream change of the ‘rules of the game’. On the contrary, the corrigendum dated 19.11.2024 and the online instructions explicitly formed part of the original advertisement itself, thereby clarifying at the outset that ‘appearing’ candidates would be treated as eligible.”
The court further observed: “Once there is a clear stipulation on the official website of the RPSC that candidates ‘appearing’ in a particular year, i.e. 2024, would be treated as eligible, and it is further not in dispute that all such candidates completed their LL.B in the same year 2024, there remains no justification for denying them eligibility within the stipulated time.”
The Bench concluded that the directions of the Single Judge were justified and consistent with the law. It recorded: “The judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the appellants only lay down guidelines in situations where the advertisement is silent or ambiguous regarding the cut-off date for qualifications. In the present case, however, the advertisement itself categorically states that the website instructions shall constitute an integral part of the advertisement.”
The Division Bench dismissed the special appeals, recording: “Consequently, the special appeals are dismissed.”
It held that there was no cause for interference in the impugned order. The court directed that appearing candidates, having completed their degrees in 2024, were validly eligible under the advertisement as supplemented by the website instructions. The order concluded that once such instructions were part of the advertisement, they must be treated as binding.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Veeram Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG with Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, AGC; Ms. Abhilasha Bora, AGC; Mr. Pravin Vyas; Ms. Khushbu Choudhary; Mr. Dheeraj Jangid
Case Title: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Lavanshu Sankhla & connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:35948-DB
Case Number: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 169/2025 & connected appeals
Bench: Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Justice Bipin Gupta
