1. - A bunch of writ petitions was decided by this Court by a common judgment. The aforesaid judgment was challenged before the Division Bench mainly on the ground that as to whether candidates possessing qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education ( for short "B.PEd.") are eligible for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Grill (for short "the PTI Gr Ill") has not been decided. Considering all the relevant aspects, the Division Bench remitted the matter back to this Court by setting aside the judgment. The petitions have been placed before this Court accordingly and now, with the consent of all the parties as well as learned counsel for the intervenor, they have been heard finally and decided by this common judgment.

2. It is a case where Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "the' RPSC") issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of PTI Gr.II and PTI Grill vide advertisement dated 03.09.2008. The separate codes where provided for two posts with further direction to submit separate applications. The qualification for two posts were also mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioners as well as the Intervenors appeared In selection and thereupon, result was declared. The controversy arose when pursuant to the combined competitive examinations for two posts, the candidates were placed In the select list ignoring their application for a particular post as well as qualification. This was even ignoring the fact that by corrigendum dated 22.09.2009, it was directed that applicants should appear in the selection to the post for which they possess educational qualification/training. It was also clarified that if anybody will appear in the selection with the wrong post code then his result would be declared in that code only. The RPSC issued select list wherein even the candidates, who had not applied for post of PTI Grill were declared qualified to that post. Same is the position for the post of PTI Gr.II. The action of the respondents was challenged by maintaining various writ petitions. Therein, a further issue was raised as to whether a candidate can be held eligible for a post even if he/she is not in possession of required qualification, as given in the Rules. These matters were earlier considered by the Coordinate Bench wherein it was held that those candidates, who did not apply for the post of PTI Grill, yet their names are placed in select list to the said post is illegal. Same way, those, who had not applied for the post of PTI GrII, should not have been shown in the select list for the said post. The outcome of the judgment was that select list should have been prepared from and amongst meritorious candidates for the post, for which they had applied. The issue as to whether candidates with qualification of B.P.Ed. are eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Grill was left open. The challenge to the aforesaid judgment sustained before the Division Bench as the crucial issue as to whether candidates with the qualification of B.P.Ed. are eligible for the post of PTI Grill was required to be decided.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that advertisement provides different qualification for the post of PTI Gr.II and PTI Grill and which is same as provided under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short "the Rules of 1971 "). The respondent RPSC made it clear that candidates should appear for the post for which they possess qualification; but contrary to the aforesaid, the candidates holding B.PEd. degree were selected for the post of PTI Grill though aforesaid is not the qualification provided under the Rules or in the advertisement for the post of PTI Grill. The equivalence of the qualification or to treat B.P.Ed. qualification holder to be eligible for the post of PTI Gr.II & Gr. III was given by the Government vide their letter dated 06th January, 2010 though no such authority exists with the State and otherwise, the eligibility criteria c