Candidates Must Possess Essential Qualification On Date Of Application, Not On Date Of Interview: Supreme Court

"Legislative intent underlying the deletion is clear and unambiguous — candidates who have not acquired the requisite qualification as on the relevant date are not eligible to apply," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 4, 2026, held that the relevant date for determining the eligibility of a candidate regarding essential educational qualifications is the date of submission of the application, rather than any subsequent date such as the commencement of interviews.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the eligibility of a candidate is assessed based on the particulars and documents furnished at the time of application, and there is no provision for subsequent supplementation.

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) challenged a Rajasthan High Court judgment that permitted final-year law students to participate in the selection process for 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer. The respondents, who had not acquired their law degrees by the application deadline of March 2024, argued they were eligible as they obtained their degrees before the preliminary examination. The High Court had initially allowed their participation, prompting the RPSC to move the apex court in appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether the relevant date for possessing the minimum essential qualification is the date of submission of the application or any time prior to the commencement of the interview. The court was also called upon to determine if the deletion of a specific proviso in the recruitment rules precluded final-year students from applying for the posts.

Application Date Is The Relevant Marker For Eligibility

The Court emphasized that a conjoint reading of the recruitment advertisement and the governing rules makes it evident that eligibility must be determined at the time of application. The bench noted that the advertisement required candidates to "possess" the degree, which necessarily excludes those who might acquire it at a future date. It held that since there is no provision for re-submission of documents, the initial application date remains the sole benchmark.

Legislative Intent Behind Deletion Of Rule Proviso

The Court closely examined Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, which deals with academic qualifications. It noted that a proviso previously existed which granted exemptions to candidates appearing in their final year examinations. However, this relaxation was deleted by a notification dated October 10, 2002, signifying a clear shift in legislative policy regarding recruitment eligibility.

"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."

Application Of Legal Maxim Against Indirect Circumvention

The Court invoked the legal maxim aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum, which stipulates that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. The bench reasoned that allowing candidates to qualify at a later stage would effectively revive the deleted proviso. The requirement to possess a degree at the time of application cannot be bypassed through subsequent acquisition during the pendency of the selection process.

Press Notes Merely Clarified Existing Statutory Rules

The bench dismissed the High Court's finding that press notes issued by the RPSC in November 2024 "altered eligibility conditions mid-process." The Court found that these notes, which warned of action under Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for ineligible applicants, were in complete consonance with the Rules and the original advertisement. These notes merely clarified that eligibility is fixed at the date of application submission.

"The press note dated 29.11.2024 is in complete consonance with the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the advertisement dated 07.03.2024."

"What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly."

Limits To Favourable Interpretation Of Recruitment Guidelines

The Court rejected the High Court’s approach of adopting an interpretation favourable to candidates to "enlarge the pool of eligibility." It held that such interpretive principles cannot be invoked when the language of the advertisement and the rules is clear and unambiguous. The bench observed that judicial intervention to broaden eligibility criteria in the face of clear rules is not permissible.

Administrative Burden And Uncertainty In Selection

Accepting the respondents' contention would introduce significant uncertainty into the selection process, the Court noted. It observed that requiring the RPSC to track the subsequent acquisition of degrees for thousands of applicants would impose an "unwarranted administrative burden." The Court held that the selection process must be governed by fixed rules to ensure fairness and efficiency for the state and the examining body.

The Supreme Court set aside the common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, allowing the appeals filed by the RPSC. It concluded that the private respondents, not possessing the requisite law degree on the last date of application, were ineligible for the Assistant Prosecution Officer posts. The final-year students were thus excluded from the recruitment process.

Date of Decision: 04 May 2026