Rajasthan Public Service Commissionv.Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors

Legal Analysis: Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 444
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Decision: May 4, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeals under Article 136 against High Court judgment directing RPSC to permit candidates without degree at application stage to appear in examination.

Synopsis of the Judgment

RPSC advertised 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer, requiring a Law degree. Respondents (law students) applied before acquiring their degree, which they obtained later (22.08.2024) before the preliminary exam (19.01.2025). The High Court directed RPSC to issue admit cards, holding that the advertisement permitted final-year students to apply. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the relevant date for eligibility is the date of submission of the application. The proviso to Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, which earlier allowed final-year students to apply, was deleted in 2002. The press notes merely clarified this position and did not alter eligibility mid-process. The High Court’s approach of preferring an interpretation favouring candidates was rejected when the language was unambiguous.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors. (with connected matters) Civil Appeal Nos. Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 32964/2025, 33900/2025, 33945/2025, 33908/2025, 34897/2025, 34899/2025, 38211/2025, 38710/2025 Bench Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta Date of Decision May 4, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 444 Appeal From Common judgment dated 12.08.2025 of Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 169/2025

2. Legal Framework

Laws/Rules Involved:

• Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 – Rule 12 (academic qualification)

• Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014

• Advertisement No. 19/Exam/A.P.O./Prosecution Dept./EP-I/2023-24 dated 07.03.2024

• Press notes dated 19.11.2024 and 29.11.2024

Precedents Cited: None specifically; the judgment relies on plain interpretation of rules and advertisement.

Maxim invoked: “Aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” – what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly.

3. Relevant Facts

• Advertisement (07.03.2024): RPSC invited applications for 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer. Essential qualification: Degree in Law (Professional) or integrated Law course.

• Status of respondents: They were final-year law students as on the last date of application. They acquired their LL.B. degree on 22.08.2024.

• Press note (19.11.2024): Scheduled preliminary exam on 19.01.2025; warned ineligible candidates to withdraw.

• Press note (29.11.2024): Clarified that under the 1978 Rules, candidates appearing in final year or acquiring qualification by exam date are not eligible; only those possessing degree by last date of application are eligible.

• Writ petition: Respondents challenged the press notes; High Court allowed, directing RPSC to issue admit cards.

• Intra-court appeal: Dismissed; hence appeals to Supreme Court.

4. Issues

1. Whether the relevant date for determining eligibility (educational qualification) is the date of submission of application or any later date (examination/interview)?

2. Whether the deletion of the proviso to Rule 12 of the 1978 Rules (which earlier permitted final-year students to apply) bars candidates from relying on a later-acquired degree?

3. Whether the High Court erred in adopting an interpretation favouring candidates despite unambiguous language?

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Relevant date for eligibility – date of application (Paras 18-22):
The advertisement required a candidate to “possess” the degree. The governing rules (Rule 12) originally had a proviso allowing final-year students to apply, but that proviso was deleted on 10.10.2002. Post-deletion, no relaxation exists. Therefore, only candidates who had already acquired the degree on the last date of application are eligible.

B. Press notes are clarificatory, not arbitrary (Para 25):
The press note dated 29.11.2024 merely reiterates the legal position under the 1978 Rules (as amended). It does not alter eligibility conditions mid-process. The High Court’s finding that it “changed the rules after applications” is incorrect.

C. Maxims of interpretation (Para 21):
The Court applied the maxim aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum – what is prohibited directly cannot be done indirectly. Allowing candidates without a degree to apply, even if they acquire it later, would circumvent the express requirement of “possessing” the degree at the time of application.

D. No ambiguity – no “pro-candidate” interpretation (Para 23):
Where the language of the advertisement and rules is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot adopt a different interpretation merely to enlarge the pool of candidates or promote competition. Such an approach is impermissible.

E. Administrative convenience (Para 24):
Accepting the respondents’ contention would introduce uncertainty and burden the RPSC in tracking subsequent acquisition of qualifications by candidates.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Deleted proviso cannot be resurrected by interpretation: Once a relaxation provision (allowing final-year students) is deleted, courts cannot read it back into the rules.

• The “cut-off date” for eligibility is the last date of application unless the advertisement or rules expressly provide otherwise (e.g., “by the date of interview”).

• Press notes issued after applications are filed, if merely clarificatory, do not cause prejudice. Candidates are expected to know the governing rules before applying.

• The “pro-candidate” interpretation rule applies only when the provision is ambiguous; it cannot be used to override plain meaning.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• The Court examined Rule 12 as it stood originally (with proviso) and after deletion (2002). The deletion was a conscious legislative choice.

• The High Court had erroneously relied on Clause 7 of the advertisement (provisional admission subject to verification) – but that clause does not alter the eligibility cut-off; it merely permits provisional scrutiny.

• The Court rejected the argument that the press notes were arbitrary, noting that they only clarified the existing legal position.

• The principle that “where two interpretations are possible, the one favouring the candidate should be adopted” applies only when the provision is genuinely ambiguous. Here, the words “possess a Degree in Law” are unambiguous.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment upholds the settled principle that eligibility must be judged as on the last date of application, unless the rules expressly state otherwise. It respects the deletion of the proviso by the rule-making authority and prevents judicial rewriting. It also clarifies that clarificatory press notes do not amount to mid-process changes.

Potential concerns: Students in their final year may face hardship, but the Court correctly held that policy is for the rule-maker, not the court. The judgment does not discuss whether the respondents had a legitimate expectation based on the original advertisement’s silence – but the advertisement itself required “possession” of the degree, so no expectation arose.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by all Public Service Commissions to reject applications from final-year students where the rules do not expressly permit it. Candidates must ensure they have acquired the degree before the last date of application. Employers may include an express clause allowing final-year students if they wish – but after this judgment, courts will enforce the plain language.

9. Final Outcome

• Civil Appeals allowed.

• Common judgment dated 12.08.2025 of Rajasthan High Court set aside.

• Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.01.2025 also set aside.

• Writ petitions dismissed.

• Respondents (candidates who applied without degree) are not entitled to participate in the selection process.

• Pending applications disposed of.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

For candidates: Before applying for any post, check the rules – if the advertisement says “possess” a qualification on the last date of application, do not apply unless you already have the degree/diploma. A degree acquired later, even before the exam, will not cure ineligibility unless the rules expressly allow it.

For recruiting authorities (PSCs, SSC, UPSC): Clearly specify the cut-off date for qualification in the advertisement. If you intend to allow final-year students, say so explicitly (e.g., “candidates appearing in final year may apply, subject to producing proof of qualification by the date of interview”). After this judgment, courts will not read such a relaxation into silent rules.

For courts: When interpreting eligibility conditions, first determine whether the language is ambiguous. If not, enforce it as written. Do not invoke the “pro-candidate” rule to rewrite clear terms.

11. Court Lines

“The maxim ‘aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum’ squarely applies to the present case. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.” (Para 21)

“Where two interpretations of the guidelines are possible, the one favourable to the candidates ought to be adopted – such an approach cannot be invoked when the language of the advertisement admits of only one clear and unambiguous interpretation.” (Para 23)

“Acceptance of the respondents’ contention would introduce uncertainty into the selection process and impose an unwarranted administrative burden upon the appellant-RPSC in tracking subsequent acquisitions of qualifications.” (Para 24)

“The press note dated 29th November, 2024 is in complete consonance with the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the advertisement, and merely clarifies the position.” (Para 25)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For candidates (litigants): If you are a final-year student, before filing a writ petition, check the governing rules for an express provision allowing you to apply. If no such provision exists, you are unlikely to succeed after this judgment. If the rules are silent but the advertisement is ambiguous, argue for an interpretation reading the ambiguity in your favour – but the burden is high.

For recruiting authorities (defence): When facing writ petitions from ineligible candidates, always place before the court: (i) the relevant service rules, (ii) any amendments deleting relaxation provisions, and (iii) the exact wording of the advertisement. Cite this judgment for the proposition that the cut-off date is the last date of application unless expressly stated otherwise.

For courts: Before directing a PSC to admit a candidate, ask: “Does the rule or advertisement expressly permit candidates appearing in the final year to apply?” If not, dismiss the petition. Do not create relaxations that the rule-maker has consciously omitted.