Final-Year LL.B. Candidates Eligible for APO Posts: Raj HC

Final-Year LL.B. Candidates Eligible for APO Recruitment Where Website Instructions Formed Part of Advertisement: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 10 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's appeals and held that candidates who were in the final year of the LL.B. course when applications closed on 12.04.2024 were eligible for the 2024 Assistant Prosecution Officer recruitment (paras 5, 9-10). The advertisement made the Commission's website instructions part of the advertisement, those instructions allowed candidates appearing in the final-year examination to apply, and all of them completed the degree in 2024 (para 9).

Key holdings

The last-date-of-application cut-off in Sakshi Arha and Ashok Kumar Sonkar governs where the advertisement is silent or ambiguous on the point (paras 7, 9).

Instructions that the advertisement declares to be part of it bind the recruiting body as part of the advertisement (paras 8-9).

Applying instructions that formed part of the advertisement from the outset is not a midstream change of the rules of the game (para 8).

Such website stipulations may be disregarded only where they directly contravene the statutory recruitment rules (para 9).

Brief Facts

On 07.03.2024 the Commission advertised 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer under the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, to be filled through a preliminary and a main examination; online applications ran from 14.03.2024 to 12.04.2024 (paras 1, 2.1). The essential qualification was a degree in law (para 2). The advertisement stated that the instructions for applicants on the Commission's website formed part of it, and those instructions allowed a person who had appeared or was appearing in the final-year examination of the qualifying course to apply (paras 2.1, 3). The respondent candidates obtained their LL.B. degrees after the last date (para 5). A Single Judge decided in their favour, and the Commission appealed (paras 2.4, 9).

Court's Findings

The Bench described the controversy as a narrow one: whether candidates who appeared in the LL.B. final-year examination in 2024 but obtained the degree after 12.04.2024 were eligible (paras 5, 7). It held that Sakshi Arha and Ashok Kumar Sonkar, which treat the last date for applications as the cut-off, apply only where there is no specification or clarification on the point (para 7). Here the advertisement specified the last date, but the website instructions clearly set out the eligibility conditions (para 7). Referring to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak, the Bench noted that instructions may supplement silent rules, but the prescribed procedure cannot be departed from or diluted once recruitment has begun; there was, however, no midstream change of the ‘rules of the game’, because the instructions formed part of the advertisement from the outset (para 8). Website stipulations could be disregarded only if they directly contravened the statutory rules, and there was no such contravention (para 9). The Supreme Court decisions relied on by the Commission address advertisements that are silent or ambiguous on the cut-off date; this advertisement expressly incorporated the instructions and so attracted the proviso for appearing candidates (para 9).

Legal Principle

Where a recruitment advertisement expressly incorporates the recruiting body's online instructions, and those instructions allow candidates appearing in the final-year qualifying examination to apply, such candidates cannot be held ineligible merely because the degree came after the last date, unless the instructions directly contravene the statutory rules (paras 8-9).

Precedents Relied Upon

Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013, decided on 07.11.2024 (Constitution Bench)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 8
Administrative instructions may supplement silent statutory rules, but the prescribed procedure cannot be departed from or diluted once recruitment has commenced; instructions issued before the process began bind as part of the advertisement.
Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors. 2025 SC 463
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 2.5, 7, 9
Eligibility is judged on the cut-off date in the rules, else the advertisement, else the last date for applications; held to apply only where there is no specification or clarification on the point.
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors. 2007(4) SCC 54
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 2.5, 7, 9
Absent a rule or a date in the advertisement, eligibility is judged on the last date for applications; held to apply only where there is no specification or clarification on the point.

View all precedents (12)

Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v. University of Rajasthan & Ors. 1993 AIR (SCW) 1488
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 2.6, 9
Candidates must be qualified on the last date for applications or the date fixed in the advertisement. Supreme Court relied on by the Commission; the Bench held that these decisions only lay down guidelines where the advertisement is silent or ambiguous on the cut-off date.
Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. 2011(9) SCC 438
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 2.6, 9
A direction enabling ineligible candidates to be appointed, contrary to the rules and the advertisement, was impermissible. Supreme Court relied on by the Commission; the Bench held that these decisions only lay down guidelines where the advertisement is silent or ambiguous on the cut-off date.
Bhupinderpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. 2000(5) SCC 262
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 2.6, 9
The eligibility cut-off date is the date in the rules, else in the advertisement, else the last date for receipt of applications. Supreme Court relied on by the Commission; the Bench held that these decisions only lay down guidelines where the advertisement is silent or ambiguous on the cut-off date.
U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr. v. Alpana 1994 AIR (SC) 423
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 2.6, 9
A candidate without a law degree on the last date for applications was not qualified to apply. Supreme Court relied on by the Commission; the Bench held that these decisions only lay down guidelines where the advertisement is silent or ambiguous on the cut-off date.
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G. Hemalathaa & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 14093 of 2019)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3.2
Cited for the candidate-respondents.
Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Jat D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12323 of 2020, decided on 19.08.2021 (Rajasthan High Court)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3.2
Cited for the candidate-respondents.
Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13295/2024, decided on 11.09.2024 (Rajasthan High Court)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3.2
Cited for the candidate-respondents.
Dayaram v. R.P.S.C. Ajmer S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20172/2012, decided on 15.07.2014 (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3.2
Cited for the candidate-respondents.
Kuldeep Jaiman v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13115 of 2021, decided on 14.02.2024 (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3.2
Cited for the candidate-respondents.

Final-Year LL.B. Candidates Eligible for APO Recruitment Where Website Instructions Formed Part of Advertisement: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

No Specific Role, No Defamation Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes 2003 Complaint Against Rajasthan Patrika and Its Editor

Juvenile Convicted of Murder: Children's Court Must Give Reasons for Fixed-Term Sentence, Rajasthan High Court Holds

Section 67 Statements and Vague 'Cooperation' Cannot Sustain NDPS Section 29 Charge: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Accused