← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India4 May 20262026 INSC 444

RPSC v. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors.

Bench of 2 · Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta

Why it matters

Listen

Recruiters and candidates in public service selections must note that where a service rule's proviso permitting "final-year appearing" candidates has been deleted, no amount of subsequent acquisition of qualification can cure ineligibility at the application stage — advocates advising PSC candidates or challenging eligibility cut-offs should scrutinise the current text of the applicable service rules before relying on any candidate-friendly interpretation of the advertisement.

Summary

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) advertised 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer in March 2024, requiring candidates to possess a Degree in Law (Professional) or an integrated Law degree as an essential qualification. The private respondents — final-year law students at the time — submitted applications despite not having obtained their degrees, acquiring the LL.B. only on 22nd August 2024. RPSC issued a press note dated 29.11.2024 clarifying that eligibility would be assessed as on the last date of application, and directed ineligible candidates to withdraw. The respondents instead approached the Rajasthan High Court, whose Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed RPSC to issue admit cards. The Division Bench affirmed that order, reasoning that the press notes altered eligibility conditions mid-process and that, where two interpretations were possible, the one favouring candidates should be preferred.

The Supreme Court set aside both the Single Judge and Division Bench judgments and allowed the appeals. The Court held that a conjoint reading of the advertisement and the governing Rules makes it unambiguous that the relevant date for determining eligibility is the date of submission of the application. Crucially, Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 originally contained a proviso permitting candidates appearing in the final year of the qualifying examination to apply, but that proviso was deleted by a State notification dated 10th October, 2002. The legislative intent of that deletion is clear: candidates who have not acquired the requisite qualification as on the date of application are simply ineligible.

The Court rejected the High Court's "two interpretations" approach, holding that the advertisement's use of the word "possess" admits of only one clear meaning and leaves no room for a candidate-friendly construction. It further applied the maxim aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum — what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly — to foreclose any attempt to circumvent the eligibility bar by acquiring the degree at a later stage. The press note dated 29.11.2024 was held to be merely clarificatory and fully consonant with the Rules and the advertisement, not a mid-process alteration of conditions.

Key principle

Where the governing service rules do not contain a proviso permitting candidates appearing in the final year of the qualifying examination to apply, the relevant date for determining possession of the minimum essential educational qualification is the date of submission of the application, and a candidate who acquires the qualification thereafter — even before the examination or interview — is not eligible.

Holding

Allowed — the date of submission of the application is the relevant date for assessing minimum essential qualification eligibility; candidates who had not obtained their law degree by that date were ineligible, and the High Court erred in directing RPSC to issue them admit cards.

Statutes invoked

  • Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 · Rule 12

Practice areas

servicewrit
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.