P.K. Lohra, V.J.

Petitioner, an aspirant for appointment to the post of LDC under the District & Sessions Judge, Merta, has preferred this writ petition praying therein undermentioned reliefs :

A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the notice dated 10.4.2014 (Annex.3), reject list dated 4.6.2014 (Annex.8) qua the petitioner and any order, direction or communication passed in pursuance to the notice dated 10.4.2014 or in pursuance to the rejected list dated 4.6.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the type and efficiency test in pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.3.2014.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct a type and efficiency test for the petitioner.

D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of LDC in pursuance of advertisement dated 10.3.2014 with all consequential benefits if otherwise she stands in merit and declared successful in the type and efficiency test.

E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

F. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.

2. In the writ petition, it is averred by the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement dated 10th of March 2013, application form was submitted by her with all requisites. Thereafter, the Incharge of Examination issued a notice dated 10th of April 2014 whereby it was conveyed to some applicants who are permitted to appear provisionally to clarify the position about their candidature in the office on or before 31st of May 2014 else candidature of these incumbent shall not be considered. In response to the said notice, petitioner approached the respondent and submitted her proficiency certificate of RSCIT for RKCLs MS Office 2010 practical test and also informed that she has appeared in the theory examination of RSCIT on 28th of May 2014. While divulging these informations, the petitioner made a request to the respondent not to reject her candidature. On receipt of the necessary papers submitted by petitioner, requisite exercise was undertaken by the respondent and it was found that she is lacking basic eligibility, and consequently in the reject list issued by the respondent name of petitioner was also indicated.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner appeared in the written examination and was declared successful, therefore, rejection of her candidature is per-se unjust and improper. Learned counsel, Mr. Jangid has also argued that the eligibility conditions prescribed by the respondent in the advertisement are in variance with the advertisement issued by the other District judge ships of the State of Rajasthan, and therefore, rejection of candidature of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Mr. Jangid has also urged that petitioner has qualified the practical examination of RSCIT and she has appeared in the theory examination, therefore, she is eligible to participate in the selection process.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is an admitted fact that in the advertisement dated 10th March 2014 the educational qualifications necessary for recruitment to the post of LDC have been incorporated in Clause 3 with material particulars. Besides qualification of Senior Secondary with Science, Commerce or Arts from University or Board duly recognized by the State, certain technical qualifications are also prescribed in sub-clause (2) of Clause 3 of the advertisement, which reads as under :

Hindi

"O" or Higher Level Certificate Course conducted by DOEACC under control of the Department of Electronics, Government of India,

Or

Computer operator & Programming Assistant (COPA) Data preparation and Computer Software (DPCS) Certificate organized under National/State Council of Vocational Training Scheme,

Or

Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Applications from a University established by law in India or from an institution recognized by the Government,

Or

Diploma in Computer Science and Engineering from a Polytechnic Institution recognized by the Government,

Or

Rajasthan State Certificate Course in Information Technology (RSCIT) conducted by Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University, Kota under control of Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited;

Or

Senior Secondary school examination with computer science as an optional subject;

Or

Any equivalent or higher qualification."

Hindi

6. If the eligibility of petitioner is examined on the touchstone of the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement then it is crystal clear that she is not possessing any of the qualifications prescribed in sub[ clause (2) of Clause 3 of the advertisement. There is no quarrel in the factual position that she has not acquired the qualification of RSCIT and she has passed only practical examination of the same. Thus, it is amply clear that it was a case of inherent lack of qualification of the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that she was not eligible to participate in the selection, the respondent rejected her candidature. It is trite that prescribing qualifications is the sole prerogative of the rule making authority or the appointing authority and such qualifications cannot be challenged at the behest of an incumbent who is not eligible, on wholly flimsy pretext. Moreover, the petitioner offered her candidature after knowing the prescribed qualification for recruitment in the advertisement, and therefore, now she cannot turn around and challenge the advertisement.

7. Honble Apex Court in V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation & Ors., [1993 Supp (3) SCC 9] [LQ/SC/1993/500] , has held that prescription of qualifications for appointment to any post is not the function of the Court and it is essentially for the rule-making authority or the employer to regulate the method of recruitment and to prescribe qualifications. The Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe in this behalf in Para 6 as infra:

"6. Thus it would be clear that, in the exercise of the rule making power, the President or authorised person is entitled to prescribe method of recruitment, qualifications both educational as well as technical for appointment or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. The rules thus having been made in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that the authorities have prescribed tailor made qualifications to suit the stated individuals whose names have been mentioned in the appeal. Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. The rules prescribed qualifications for eligibility and the suitability of the appellant would be tested by the Union Public Service Commission."

8. Thus, in my considered opinion, no illegality has been committed by the respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is bereft of any merit and devoid of any force.

9. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.

Writ petition dismissed.