LL.B. Must Be Held When Applying: SC on RPSC APO Recruitment

Degree Must Be Held When Applying: Supreme Court Rules Final-Year LL.B. Candidates Ineligible for Rajasthan APO Posts

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Lavanshu Sankhla, the Supreme Court held that eligibility, including the educational qualification, is judged on the date the application is submitted. Law students who applied for 181 Assistant Prosecution Officer posts before obtaining their degrees were ineligible, though they graduated before the preliminary examination. The Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court Division Bench judgment of 12 August 2025 and allowed the Commission's appeals (paras 18, 21, 25-27).

Key holdings

The relevant date for eligibility, including educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application (paras 18, 25).

The 2002 deletion of Rule 12's proviso for final-year candidates showed that they cannot apply for these posts (paras 19-20).

A requirement to ‘possess’ a degree excludes candidates who acquire it at a future date (para 21).

The candidate-friendly reading cannot be invoked when the advertisement admits of only one clear interpretation (para 23).

The Commission's press note of 29 November 2024 merely clarified the existing eligibility position (para 25).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 7 March 2024 the Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer, requiring a Degree in Law (Professional) or an integrated law course (para 7). The respondents applied while yet to appear in their final-year examination and acquired the qualification on 22 August 2024 (paras 8, 11). Press notes of 19 and 29 November 2024 asked candidates lacking the qualification to withdraw, the second requiring it by the last date of application (paras 9-10). On 15 January 2025 a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court directed that they be admitted to the preliminary examination of 19 January 2025, and a Division Bench affirmed this on 12 August 2025 (paras 4, 13-14).

Court's Findings

The Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning (para 16). The advertisement required a candidate to possess a law degree, and its seventh note made admission provisional and liable to cancellation on detection of ineligibility (para 17). Read with the governing rules, the relevant date for eligibility, including educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application, since eligibility is assessed on the particulars furnished then and there is no provision for later supplementation (para 18). Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 once let final-year candidates apply, but that proviso was deleted by a notification of 10 October 2002 (paras 19-20). What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, and the requirement to ‘possess’ a degree excludes those who may acquire it later (para 21). The interpretation favouring candidates cannot be invoked when the advertisement admits of only one clear meaning (para 23). Accepting qualifications acquired before the interview would bring uncertainty and an administrative burden (para 24). The press note of 29 November 2024 merely clarified the position (para 25).

Legal Principle

Where an advertisement requires a candidate to possess a qualification and the recruitment rules no longer let final-year candidates apply, eligibility is judged on the date the application is submitted; a qualification obtained later, even before the examination or interview, does not suffice (paras 18, 20-21, 25).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For this recruitment, the date that mattered was the date the application was submitted: final-year students who applied and graduated before the examination were held ineligible, the final-year proviso to Rule 12 having been deleted (paras 18, 20, 25). Candidates should check the rules for such a proviso before applying, and recruiting bodies may rely on paras 21-24 when a later press note only restates the advertisement. The judgment does not address the position of candidates allowed to take part under the High Court's orders. The Division Bench judgment set aside here is reported on NyayVidhan. Compare Irfan Ahmad Hakak on eligibility criteria and ambiguity in recruitment advertisements.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.