Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

The prayer in the present petition is to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Commerce subject in pursuance of the advertisement dated 2.8.2013 and corrigendum dated 24.09.2013.

2. The facts in short are that respondent No.2 RPSC issued an advertisement dated 2.8.2013 whereby posts were advertised for appointment on the post of School Lecturer in various subjects. No specific date was fixed for the examination. It was stated in the said advertisement that the dates shall be declared at a later point of time. As per this advertisement dated 2.8.2013, the RPSC prescribed in the advertisement that the candidate should fulfil the eligibility criteria prior to the date of conducting of School Lecturer Competitive Examination, 2013. All the candidates who were yet to appear in the examination were allowed to participate in the examination subject to their acquiring the qualifications before the date of the said examination.

3. It is not disputed that in pursuance to her application, the petitioner was issued admit card. The petitioner was also allowed to appear in the said examination for first paper on 12.7.2014 as well as for the second paper on 27.9.2014. 26 posts were reserved for appointment under the widow category. The petitioner who belongs to the widow category had accordingly applied under the said category. RPSC offered appointment to a candidate of this category who was much lower in merit than the petitioner. A candidate who had got 99.42 marks was accorded appointment whereas the petitioner had secured 175 marks was not offered the appointment on the post under this category in spite of number of seats lying vacant. Accordingly, the petitioner was forced to file the present writ petition.

4. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification as per the rules. The written examination had commenced on 12.7.2014 but the petitioner cleared the requisite educational qualification only on 23.9.2014 and hence she was held ineligible. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1520/2013 (Seeta Seervi & Ors. v. State of Raj. & anr.) dismissing the petition after taking into account the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar & Anr. reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18.

5. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Ashok Kumar does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case. In the said case, a cut-off date had been prescribed in the advertisement. The candidates were required to be fully qualified by the prescribed date i.e. 15.07.1982. In the present case, no cut-off date was provided in the advertisement. As per the advertisement, even the candidates who were yet to be appeared in the final examination, were permitted to submit their application subject to acquiring the qualification before the date of the examination in terms of the proviso (3) to Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970.

6. It is not disputed that the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 are applicable to the case in hand. Proviso 3 to Rule 11 reads as under:-

“Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but she/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency :-

(i) before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview;

(ii) before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview;

(iii) before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is ma