Rajasthan High Court Permits Law Students Without Completed Degree to Appear for Assistant Prosecution Officer Examination

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has allowed law students, who had applied for the Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO) examination despite not having completed their law degree at the time of application, to participate in the selection process. The controversy arose after the State issued a corrigendum to the recruitment advertisement, creating ambiguity about eligibility requirements and leaving several applicants uncertain about their status.

The original advertisement for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer invited applications from candidates holding a law degree. However, it did not explicitly state that the qualification had to be completed before the last date for submission of applications. Because of this, many students in their final year of law studies applied, expecting that by the time of the examination they would have obtained their degree. Later, the State issued a corrigendum clarifying that only those candidates who had acquired the prescribed qualification by the last date of application would be considered eligible. The corrigendum also directed those who did not meet this condition to withdraw their applications.

This sudden clarification caused hardship to a number of applicants who had already applied in good faith. They approached the High Court, challenging the exclusion and arguing that the corrigendum altered the rules midway through the recruitment process. The petitioners maintained that the absence of a clear stipulation in the original notification had created confusion, and therefore they should not be denied the opportunity to appear for the examination.

The Division Bench of the High Court examined the matter and acknowledged that the ambiguity in the advertisement had indeed misled the candidates. The Court observed that when the State issues an advertisement for recruitment, it is expected to be clear and unambiguous in its terms. If the language used in the notification has the effect of creating confusion among candidates, the responsibility cannot be shifted onto the applicants. It further held that a corrigendum issued subsequently cannot operate to retrospectively disqualify candidates who had applied on the basis of the original terms.

The Court also emphasized the principle of fairness in public recruitment, noting that the petitioners had applied in genuine belief based on the wording of the initial advertisement. Since they had not deliberately concealed or misrepresented their qualifications, they could not be penalized for an ambiguity caused by the State itself. The Bench therefore directed that these candidates be permitted to appear for the Assistant Prosecution Officer examination.

Through this decision, the High Court reinforced the importance of clarity and fairness in recruitment notifications. It ensured that candidates acting in good faith are not disadvantaged by subsequent changes or clarifications in eligibility conditions. The ruling provides significant relief to aspirants who were at risk of losing a career opportunity due to confusion created by the corrigendum, and it also serves as a reminder to recruiting authorities to draft notifications with precision to avoid similar disputes in the future.