Balia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd August, 2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The petition has been dismissed with reference to earlier decision of this Court in Jyotsna v. State of Raiasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1626/1996).
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the decision in Jyotsna's case has little relevance to the facts of the present case and in our opinion rightly so. Jyotsna's case has been decided on the basis that during the pendency of the writ petition it was directed that the petitioner be considered for selection and the result be withheld. Thus, under the directions of the Court, her case was considered. This led to calling of the result of the candidate and after observing the result, the Court found that as per the result she cannot get the relief. In that view of the matter, the petition was rejected not on merit but because the issue has become academic inasmuch even if the petitioner were to succeed on merit she would not get any relief. Whereas the present case concerns the fulfilment of the eligibility criteria for being considered for selection as Lecturer.
4. This position appears to be correct, and therefore, we have examined the contention of the appellant on merit.
5. The facts, which have emerged from the appellant's own assertions, are that in the M.Phil. Examination of 1992 he appeared but did not succeed. Theafter, he appeared in August, 1994 in M.Phil, Examination of 1993 conducted by the University of Rajasthan. The marksheet of which was received by the petitioner on 10th Nov. 1997. By Advertisement No. 5/97-98, 78 posts of Lecturer in Geography were advertised. The applications were required to be submitted by 9th Feb., 1998. One of the conditions of eligibility for the post was that the candidate besides fulfilling educational qualification, as prescribed, should have cleared eligibility test for Lecturer conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. This, admittedly, the petitioner does not possess and he was therefore not within the field of substantive provision of eligibility or para 3 of the proviso added to the eligibility clause by the 1st Amendment Regulations, 1995 which reads as under:--
'Provided that candidates who have submitted Ph.D. thesis or passed the M.Phil examination by 31st December, 1993 are exempted from the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR of similar test accredited by the UGC.'
6. The appellant claims that since Examinations of 1993 were not held in time by the University because of its practice followed in not conducting successive examination until result of earlier examination is declared, the Examination of 1993 for M.Phil. (Geography) which could not be conducted by 31st Dec., 1993 but were conducted in August, 1994, which examination the petitioner did pass. Therefore, the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of proviso because of the fortuitous circumstance of not holding the examination of 1993 in time prior to 31st Dec., 1993.
7. It is clear from the facts narrated in the petition that the petitioner has not taken Examination of 1993 before 31st Dec., 1993 therefore, his passing the examination by 31st Dec., 1993 could not have arisen, even by invoking principle of relating the result of an examination back to the date of holding of examination. The theory of relation back would not assist the appellant-petitioner is getting into the operative field of the proviso.
8. This doctrine of relation back, we have referred to by assuming that two alternatives have been envisaged. One is merely submitting thesis of Ph.D. by 31.12.93. In such case approving thesis and conferment of Ph.D. degree prior to 31.12.1993 is not pre-condition. In such event, a candidate who is pursuing Ph.D., becomes eligible merely by fulfilling the condition of submitting thesis for scrutiny and approval by the University as per its provisions. Obviously, it is inherent that only such case can be considered in which Ph.D. thesis is ultimately accepted, otherwise if mere submission of thesis is taken to be sufficient, without treating it essential that such thesis is ultimately approved, it will make the provision highly unreasonable and arbitrary. In that view of matter to save the proviso from vice of unreasonable and arbitrary so as to violative of Article 14, it is reasonable to hold that taking examination of M.Phil prior to December 31, 1993 can be treated in the same way as Ph.D. That is to say if the conferment of Ph.D. degree after 31.12.93 on the basis of thesis submitted prior to 31st Dec., 1993 as by relating the qualification back on the date of submission of thesis, or by treating the submission of thesis equal to taking of examination of M.Phil prior to 31.12.93, becomes relevant only if the candidate is ultimately conferred with Ph.D. on that basis or passes M.Phil on the basis of examination taken prior to 31.12.93.
9. More importantly, confining the proviso carving out exception to the general rule only to the 'Examination of 1993' could not have been the intention because that would lead to absurd result of disqualifying all the persons who have attained the qualification prior to 1993 Examination except those who had taken and passed Examination of 1993.
10. Moreover, the very practice, to which the appellant has alluded to in his writ petition in Para C/6, goes to show that prior to the (First Amendment) of Regulations, 1995 a, circular has been issued on 30th Jan., 1990 that all candidates who have secured 55% marks at Master's degree level may be exempted from appearing in eligibility test for recruitment of lecturers in universities and colleges. Inter-alia, if a candidate has been awarded M.Phil upto 31st March, 1992 and Ph.D. upto December, 1992. This only makes it clear that awarding of degree is the relevant factor and not the particular year for which examination has been conducted prior to cut off date to make exception in favour of those who had not cleared eligibility test for appointment as lecturer.
11. The province of this Court would not extend to reframe the scheme of exception carved out by amending the Rule so as to enlarge or narrow its scope. At best, the Court's task would be to read the provision in a reasonable manner so as to keep away the arbitrariness or incongruity that may apparently be appearing from the provision and to further the object of such provisions. But it does not fall within the domain of this Court to rewrite the provision in a manner which may appear to the Court to be more palatable. As on facts asserted by the petitioner himself, by no stretch of imagination he could be accommodated in the proviso, the benefit of which he claims, we reach the same conclusion as learned Single Judge, about the dismissal of petition, albeit for different reason.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No orders as tocosts.