Abhishek Jain vs State Of Rajasthan

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

The instant Special Appeal Writ has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed by quashing the judgment dated 17.04.2025 by allowing the writ petition along with the prayer made therein by holding the appellant eligible and entitle for the post of Pharmacist. Any other order deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner/appellant.”

The respondents have invited applications for the post of Pharmacist vide Advertisement/Notification dated 05.05.2023. The appellant applied pursuant thereto and succeeded on merits; however, the appellant’s name did not appear in the selected list solely on the ground that registration with the Pharmacy Council was not available at the time of document verification.

Learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited submission that after acquiring the requisite qualification of Pharmacist, the appellant applied for registration with the Pharmacy Council on 22.02.2023. He draws the attention of this Court towards the State Circular dated 31.10.2022, particularly paragraph No.4 thereof, which reads as under:-

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it was the obligation of respondent No.3 – Pharmacy Council to issue the registration certificate within the stipulated period of 15 days/01 month, as prescribed under the Circular dated 31.10.2022. It is submitted that the registration certificate was not issued within the prescribed time, and as a consequence thereof, the appellant was disqualified from the selection process, as the registration certificate was ultimately issued on 12.07.2023, whereas the last date for submission of documents was 11.06.2023, as per the advertisement.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the factual matrix of the case but submits that as per the advertisement dated 05.05.2023, the appellant was required to submit the registration certificate issued by the Pharmacy Council on or before 11.06.2023, whereas the same was obtained belatedly on 12.07.2023. It is further submitted that although the portal was reopened for correction on 12.09.2023 and the registration number was uploaded thereafter, strict adherence to the cut-off date is mandatory in public recruitment. Learned counsel submits that any deviation would open a Pandora’s box and render the recruitment process susceptible to uncertainty and irregularities. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025 SCC OnLine SC 757, decided on 08.04.2025), particularly paragraph No.38, which reads as under:-

“38. Significant reliance is placed by the Appellants on the 2-Judge bench decision of this Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). A perusal of the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi on the factual matrix therein is evidently distinct. The same, thus, cannot come to the rescue of the Appellants. In the instant case, it is not a contention of the Appellants that they are missing a valid proof of attainment of their particular qualification or right. No candidate before us has a claim that they, to begin with, already availed and established their eligibility, or had applied for a NCL category certificate and issuance of the same is delayed at the behest of the competent authority. The ratio, therefore, in the relied judgment would not apply.”

This Court has taken note of the fact that the appellant is a duly qualified Pharmacist, who applied for registration with the Pharmacy Council on 22.02.2023. This Court also notes that pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.05.2023, the appellant participated in the selection process and succeeded on merits, but could not furnish the registration certificate, as the same was not issued till the cut-off date i.e. 11.06.2023. However, this Court has further taken note of the State Circular dated 31.10.2022, particularly condition No.4 thereof, which mandates issuance of registration within 15 days/01 month of the application. Thus, a legitimate expectation arose in favour of the appellant, as the circular was binding upon the Pharmacy Council.

6.1 This Court has carefully perused the precedent law laid down in the judgment of Sakshi Arha (supra). Paragraph No.38 itself carves out a clear distinction, as it specifically records that it was not a case where the candidate had applied for the certificate and the issuance thereof was delayed at the behest of the competent authority, a situation of which, squarely exists in the present case. 6.2 This Court has also perused the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumar Laxmi Saroj & Ors. v Stated of U.P. & Ors.: Civil Appeal No.9040/2022, decided on 15.12.2022, the relevant part of which, reads as follows:-

"4.1. Thus, because of the late issuance of the registration by the U.P. Council, the appellants could not produce the U.P. Council registration either on the last date of the application and/or at the time of verification of documents and therefore, they were held ineligible.

4.2 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that as such, there was no fault on the part of the appellants in not producing the U.P. Council registration either at the time of submitting the

applications forms or even at the time of verification of the documents. As such, all the appellants except one had applied for U.P. Council registration before the date of advertisement i.e., 15.12.2021. Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer. The issue involved is directly covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Narender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; (2022) 3 SCC 286. In the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court that once it was found that there was no lapse delay on the part of the applicant and/or there was no fault of the appellant/applicant in not producing the NOC at the relevant time, he cannot be punished for the same. When the aforesaid decision was pressed into service before the High Court on behalf of the appellants, the High Court has not followed the same by observing that the directions issued by this Court in the case Narender Singh (supra), were in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid is a misreading and/or misinterpreting of the judgment of this Court. This Court has specifically laid down the law that if it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him. However, as in that case, another candidate/employee was already appointed, this Court had protected his service also while exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India was for protecting the service of another employee – respondent No. 4 in that case. The High Court has as such, misread the judgment of this Court.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Narender Singh (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.”

This Court observes that the law stipulates that in case a person is required to acquire a definite qualification or to fulfill an existing condition such as age, etc., the cut-off date has to be

strictly adhered to, as envisaged by the recruiting authority/employer. However, this Court is of the firm view that merely because a certificate relating to an existing qualification to be registered has been applied by the candidate within time but has been issued by the authorities at a belated stage, the same cannot be allowed to operate to the detriment of the candidate. Thus, in the given factual matrix, when the certificate was applied for well within time on 22.02.2023, and as per the Circular dated 31.10.2022, it was required to be issued on or before 22.03.2023, but the certificate itself was issued belatedly on 12.07.2023. This Court finds that the said delay is not attributable to the appellant but squarely lies at the doorstep of the State/Pharmacy Council.

The cut-off date of i.e. 11.06.2023, for all practical purposes, is required to be strictly adhered to, i.e., for attaining the qualification, age, and all other parameters. However, for a qualification already attained, the registration whereof, was purely in the hands of the respondents, who were bound to issue the same within a period of 15 days/01 month, and for which, due diligence was exercised by the candidate by applying well in advance, the resultant delay cannot be allowed to cause prejudice to the candidate.

In light of the above, the present Special Appeal Writ is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7472/2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant appointment to the appellant to the post of Pharmacist, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 05.05.2023, along with all similarly situated candidates, if he is otherwise fulfilling all other conditions and is on merit. Such appointment shall be given within a period of three months from today. The appointment shall relate back to the date on which a person of equivalent merit, or just below or just above in merit, has been given appointment. However, the actual benefits shall be granted notionally for the period during which the appellant has not rendered services.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.