Rajasthan HC Upholds RPSC Requirement That Senior Residency Experience Must Be Complete by Application Deadline

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a challenge by Senior Residents who lacked one year of post-MD experience by the 29 January 2025 application deadline for Assistant Professor posts under the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962.

Justice Anand Sharma, sitting singly at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, dismissed a writ petition filed by four medical professionals challenging a condition in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's advertisement dated 11 December 2024. The advertisement, which invited applications for the post of Assistant Professor in various specialisations under the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, required candidates to possess the requisite experience on or before the last date of submission of online application forms, fixed as 29 January 2025. The petitioners, all working as Senior Residents in departments under the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and associated medical institutions, argued that the condition was arbitrary and contrary to applicable rules. The court rejected each ground and found no illegality in the RPSC's approach.

The Dispute Before the Court

The four petitioners — Nitin Kumar Jhalani, Asha Lata, Narendra Kumar, and Dr. Sarita Kumari — had completed their postgraduate medical qualifications but had not accumulated one full year of Senior Residency experience after acquiring their MD or MS degree by 29 January 2025. The RPSC advertisement, and a corrigendum dated 1 January 2025, made clear that one year of Senior Residency experience after obtaining the MD/MS degree in the concerned subject was mandatory for the post of Assistant Professor.

The petitioners did not dispute that they lacked the experience on the cut-off date. Their case was that the condition itself was unlawful. They sought a declaration that they were eligible for consideration under the advertisement, and challenged the note appended to it which also required the experience certificate to be uploaded along with the application form.

The Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners rested their challenge on Rule 19 of the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences Employees (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 2020. That provision, they argued, grants candidates appearing in the final year examination liberty to acquire the requisite qualification before the examination or interview stage. On that basis, they contended that since they would complete one year of Senior Residency experience before the interview, they ought to have been treated as eligible.

They also pointed to an earlier recruitment process from 2021 in which no such condition had been incorporated, arguing that the present stipulation was therefore arbitrary and discriminatory. The combined effect of these two arguments was that the experience requirement should be assessed at the interview stage, not at the application deadline.

The Respondents' Position

The RPSC filed a reply contending that the recruitment was governed entirely by the Rules of 1962 and that the Rules of 2020 had no application. The commission emphasised that the advertisement itself clearly stated that only candidates possessing the requisite educational qualification and experience as on the last date of submission of applications would be eligible. The relaxation granted to candidates appearing in the final year of the qualifying examination, the RPSC said, was confined to educational qualification alone and did not extend to experience.

The RPSC also relied on a Circular dated 14 March 2002 issued by the Department of Personnel, which clarifies that where experience is prescribed alongside educational qualification, relaxation cannot be granted for acquisition of experience after the cut-off date.

The State Government supported the RPSC's position. It submitted that Rule 12 of the Rules of 1962 merely authorises the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences to prescribe educational qualification, technical qualification, and experience for teaching posts, but that recruitment itself continues to be governed by the Rules of 1962. The State argued that the petitioners had wrongly attempted to import provisions of the Rules of 2020 into a recruitment process to which those rules were wholly inapplicable.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Sharma identified the principal issue as whether the condition requiring possession of requisite experience as on the last date of submission of applications was arbitrary or illegal so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

On the applicability of the Rules of 2020, the court was unequivocal. The Rules of 2020 regulate recruitment to posts under RUHS itself and cannot override or supplant the statutory scheme governing recruitment under the Rules of 1962. The petitioners' reliance on Rule 19 of the Rules of 2020 was described as “wholly misconceived.”

The court then drew a clear distinction between educational qualification and experience. A relaxation permitting candidates appearing in the final year of the qualifying examination to apply was, on a careful reading of the advertisement, confined to educational qualification. Experience, the court reasoned, stands on an entirely different footing: it is a completed factual requirement which must exist on the cut-off date prescribed by the employer, not something that can be in the process of acquisition.

On the 2021 recruitment comparison, the court held that the absence of a particular stipulation in an earlier advertisement does not create any vested right in favour of candidates to insist upon identical conditions in future recruitments. Each recruitment process is an independent exercise, and the employer is competent to modify or clarify eligibility conditions in accordance with administrative requirements and statutory rules.

The court accepted the respondents' reliance on the Circular dated 14 March 2002, finding that the impugned stipulation was fully consistent with the administrative instructions governing recruitment. It also reiterated the settled position that terms and conditions of an advertisement constitute the governing framework of the recruitment process, and that courts cannot rewrite eligibility conditions or extend relaxation beyond what the statutory rules and the advertisement permit. Accepting the petitioners' plea, the court observed, “would amount to altering the eligibility criteria after commencement of recruitment,” which is impermissible in law.

The court found that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any statutory provision prohibiting the respondents from prescribing the last date of submission of applications as the relevant date for acquisition of experience. In the absence of manifest arbitrariness, irrationality, or a statutory bar, the policy decision of the recruiting authority was not open to interference.

Outcome

Justice Anand Sharma dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1183/2025 in its entirety. The court held that the petitioners admittedly did not possess the mandatory one year of Senior Residency experience after acquiring their postgraduate qualification on the last date of submission of application forms, and that the respondents committed no illegality in treating them as ineligible. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.