Eligibility for recruitment is determined by the first declaration of results, maintaining a fixed cut-off date in accordance with applicable rules.

ORDER :

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 21.06.2016 whereby, his candidature was rejected as he had acquired the requisite educational qualification namely, B.Ed after 16.03.2007, when the result of recruitment was declared.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts appertain for present case are that the petitioner vied for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 30.10.2006. He had submitted his application form before the last date, while he was pursing B.Ed.

3. In light of the terms of the advertisement and in light of Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') petitioner appeared in the recruitment process with a stand that he would produce certificate of passing B.Ed examination later on.

4. As the facts unfolded, result of the competitive examination was declared on 16.03.2007, in which, the petitioner was not declared successful/meritorious.

5. Thereafter, certain candidates challenged the result declared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the ground that excess reservation to female candidates had been granted, which writ petitions came to be allowed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 20.09.2011 rendered in a group of cases led by Naresh Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3414/2009) and the respondent - Commission was directed to declare the result afresh.

6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma (supra), another result was declared on 30.09.2014 in which, the petitioner was found meritorious. But, when his documents were examined, it was noticed that he had passed B.Ed on 11.10.2007 after the result was declared. The respondents, thus, rejected petitioner's candidature by impugned communication dated 21.06.2016.

7. Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner having apprised the Court about the requisite facts, argued that Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 speaks of declaration of result and since the date on which petitioner's result was declared, (on 30.09.2014) he had acquired requisite educational qualification of B.Ed, he was eligible to be appointed.

8. Learned counsel argued that the declaration of result has to be interpreted in such a manner that it is relatable to the date when the result of a candidate in the recruitment examination is declared, irrespective of the fact that the result has already been declared.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the order of this court passed in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra) was clear and a direction was given to the respondent - Commission to declare the result afresh and therefore, the respondent's decision of non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of not possessing the requisite educational qualification is illegal.

10. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner's contention is not tenable in the eye of law and if the submission made by the petitioner is accepted, it would lead to more than one cut-off date or the floating of cut-off dates for acquiring requisite educational qualification for different candidates.

11. It was argued by Mr. Sharma that date of declaration of result has to be taken as the date when the result was firstly declared, regardless of the fact that the result was declared on more than one occasions.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the