Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction of the Court that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance to the advertisement No. 10/98 issued on 15-6-98, contained in Annexure 5 to this writ petition. (2). As per the aforesaid advertisement, the eligibility for the post has been prescribed that a candidate must possess the qualification of Higher Secondary or Senior Secondary. The petitioner does not possess the qualification of Senior Secondary but has passed only the Secondary School Examination in the year 1995. She stakes her claim only on the ground that the appointment of Teacher Grade III was earlier regulated by the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 and the academic qualification required under rule 11 of the said Rules for the said post was only Secondary+Teachers Training, but the qualification, i.e. the eligibility, has been amended by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,1996 with effect from 30-12-96. It has further been clarified by the Government by issuing a Notification on 7.5.98 that the eligibility for Grade III Teachers would be Senior Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education (i.e. 10+2) or under the old Scheme, Higher Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education with five subjects in which three subjects, Maths, English, and Hindi, would be compulsory. The petitioners grievance is that the vacancies had not been filled-up for last three years and, thus, she has been deprived of her right to be considered for the said post after obtaining the qualification of Secondary School Examination. (3). The petitioner had passed the Secondary School Examination in the year 1995 and obtained the certificate on 25.6.95. She passed the Teachers Training Course (second year) Examination in the year 1997, which is evident from the certificate dated 23.9.1997 filed by the petitioner as Annexure 2 to the petition. Thus, by no means the petitioner can say that she was eligible for the post of Teacher Grade III prior to the commencement of the amended Rules which came in operation w.e.f. 30.12.96. Thus, by no means the petitioner can say that she was eligible for the post of Teacher Grade III prior to the commencement of the amended Rules which came in operation w.e.f. 30.12.96. The advertisement was made on 15.6.98 and the petitioner become qualified, at the most, even under the Old Law on 23.9.97 and as such she cannot say that there was a much delay in filling-up the vacancies after she possessed the requisite qualification , Teachers Training Certificate. (4). Even if the petitioner had obtained the requisite qualification prior to 30.12.96, she had no right to seek such direction for the reason that it is not mandatory for the State or State instrumentalities under the law to determine the vacancies year- wise, which is applicable only in a case where the vacancies are to be filled-up by promotion. Under the statutory Rules, even if there is a provision that the vacancies are to be determined and advertised twice in a year and if the same could not be done for one reason or the other, it will not create any right in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner ought to have approached the Court for seeking a direction to the State to issue advertisement for the post and if she slept at that time, she cannot be permitted to awake and agitate it now. In case of direct recruitment, a candidate, at the most, has a right to be considered for the post if he/she is eligible as per the advertisement and this Court cannot issue direction to consider the candidature of the petitioner even if she is not eligible only on the ground that the vacancies could not be advertised and filled-up for last three years. (5). This issue was considered by the Honble Apex Court in Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission & Ors. vs. Dr. Narendra Mohan & Ors. (1), where in the Apex Court has observed as under :- `` It is difficult to accept the contention of Shri Rao to adopt the chain system of recruitment by notifying each years vacancies and for recruitment of the candidates found eligible for the respective years. It would be fraught with grave consequences. It is settle law that the Government need not immediately notify vacancies as soon as they arose. It would be fraught with grave consequences. It is settle law that the Government need not immediately notify vacancies as soon as they arose. It is open, as early as possible, to inform the vacancies existing or anticipated to the PSC for recruitment and that every eligible person is entitled to apply for and to be considered of his claim for recruitment provided he satisfies the prescribed requisite qualifica- tions. Pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on date of inviting application for recruitment offending Articles 14 and 16. (6). Mr. Trivedi placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court (Jaipur Bench) passed in Rajpal Singh & Ors. vs. Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department & Ors. (2). In fact the aforesaid judgment does not deal with the issue involved here in. As explained above, it is not necessary to determine the year-wise vacancies and secondly even if it is necessary, as per the law laid down by the Honble supreme Court in Union of India & Anr, vs. Yogendra Singh, (3), the applicant must possess the requisite qualification as per the advertisement even if the vacancies have arisen prior to the date of the advertisement. In the said judgment, the Honble Apex Court has categorically held as under:- ``No candidate who does not possess the currently prescribed quali- fication and he possesses the qualification prescribed earlier, can be said to be qualified or have any vested right to appointment even against some earlier unfilled vacancies. Every candidate, who aspires to fill any vacancy, must possess the educational qualification that are then prescribed. (7). As the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification as provided in the advertisement, no relief can be granted to her. (8). In view of the above, I find no force in the petition and being devoid of any merit, it is accordingly dismissed.