1. These four appeals arise from separate orders passed in different writ petitions.

2. There being a similarity on facts and the questions of law involved being common they have been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. The controversy relates to appointment on the post of Senior Teacher Gr.II under advertisement dated 2.8.2013. In the facts of the case, delay in preferring some of the appeals is condoned after hearing Counsel for the parties.

3. The writ petitions have been allowed following an order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.34 of 2015 (Smt. Manju Chhaba & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) affirmed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.127 of 2016 and SLP (Civil) No.20168 of 2016 against the same also dismissed on 18.7.2016 in limine, as also the review application.

4. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the advertisement made a departure from the normal rule that eligibility was to be acquired by the last date for submission of applications. It permitted those who had participated or were going to participate in the B.Ed. examination or post-graduate examination in concerned subject also to apply but subject to the condition that they should have acquired the said qualification before the examination for selection under the advertisement. The process of selection was based only on a written examination and not interview.

5. Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subordinate service rules’) provided that a candidate may be provisionally permitted to appear for the examination or interview as the case may be. Mere permission to appear in the examination shall not entitle the candidate to a presumption of eligibility. The Commission may scrutinize the applications of the candidate later on and consider only those who are found suitable for appointment. Considering that those who were yet to appear or whose results were awaited were provisionally permitted to appear, obviously the question of any scrutiny with regard to their possessing the B.Ed. or post Graduate qualification on the last date for applying did not arise. That was an aspect to be considered only subsequently subject to qualifying in the written examination.

6. Clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the educational service rules’) relevant for the present controversy provided that the aforesaid eligibility must be acquired before appearing in written examination. Manifestly it means that the results of B.Ed or post graduation as the case may be should have been published before the first date of the examination. The fact that the examination may have been in two parts and on two dates is not relevant. A candidate cannot claim that eligibility was acquired before the second paper. Without prejudice to the same it was alternatively contended in the facts of the present case that the first paper was held on 12.7.2014 and the second paper was scheduled on 14.7.2014. The latter for unavoidable reasons was postponed to 27.9.2014. The fact that the Respondents may have acquired the qualifications on 22.9.2014 cannot come to their aid and is not relevant as the eligibility at best will have to be tested as on the original scheduled date of 14.7.2014.

7. Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra) does not lay down any law and the larger question with regard to the interpretation of the educational service rules was left open for consideration. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine. Relief was granted only on the premise that they had been permitted to appear and had successfully qualified in the written examination. There is no ambiguity in the educational service rules and effect has to be given to the literal meaning of the words used.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents fairly conceded that Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra) came to be decided on the premise of their having been permitted to appear in the writ