JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is admitted. Mr. Ashok Gaur advocate waives service for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. C. P. Sharma advocate waives service for respondent No. 3. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the writ petition, we heard and dispose of the appeal finally at this stage. 2. The respondents No. 1 to 3 (here-in-after referred to, 'the petitioners') applied for appointment to the post of Sanskrit Teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th November, 1999 issued by the State Government through Director, Sanskrit Education (here-in-after referred to 'the Government'). The applications were invited for 269 vacant posts of Sanskrit Teachers. The advertisement provided for the eligibility for the post of Sanskrit Teacher thus : "Holding Praveshika/Senior Upadhyaya or any other equivalent Sanskrit Education Teacher Certificate recognised by the State Government from the Board of Secondary Education with English as one of the subjects." 3. Two notes (a) and (b) were appended thereto, Note (a) provides thus : "In Praveshika/Secondary or any equivalent examination, five subjects including Hindi, English and Mathematics are must, otherwise the candidate shall not be held eligible." Note (b) reads thus : "After acquiring higher qualification, improvement in grade/marks in lower category shall not be recognised for consideration". 4. The candidature of the petitioners was not considered on the ground that the qualification of Praveshika was acquired by them subsequent to the higher education and, therefore, they were not eligible as per note (b) appended to the advertisement. 5. The Government contested the writ petition by responding thereto. In the reply they dealt with the case of each of the petitioners. It was submitted that none of them was qualified as they first acquired higher qualification and then appeared in the lower category like Praveshika. 6. The single Judge relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar & others v. State of Rajasthan & another, RLR 2001(3) 258 and, accordingly, by the impugned order date 4th September, 2006 directed the Government to take into consideration the marks obtained by the petitioners in subsequent examination to the higher qualification already acquired and prepare a fresh merit list and give them appointment on the post of Sanskrit Teacher Grade III. It is this order that is impugned by the Government in this special appeal. 7. It is this order that is impugned by the Government in this special appeal. 7. Though the facts of all the three petitioners slightly differ, we do not deem it necessary to multiply the facts by setting out the facts relating to each of them; the facts relating to one of them i.e. Laxmi Kant Sharma shall suffice. He did his Secondary in the year 1989 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Senior Higher Secondary in the year 1990 from the same Board. He did his B.A the year 1990 from the University of Rajasthan and did his B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) in the year 1996 from Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Tirupati (Andhra Pradesh). After having passed M.A. and B.Ed., as noticed above, he did Praveshika in the year 1997. The question that falls for our consideration and decision is whether the marks obtained by the petitioners in Praveshika after having acquired higher qualification can be considered for considering the qualification/eligibility of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Grade III Sanskrit Teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated November, 1999 or the qualification and the marks obtained by them in Praveshika have to be ignored by virtue of note (b) appended to the advertisement dated 26th November, 1999. 8. At this stage itself we may observe that Mr. Ashok Gaur, counsel for the petitioners admitted, and, in our view, fairly that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar relied upon by the Single Judge has no application to the facts of the present case. In paragraph 4 of the report, the Division Bench in the case of Surendra Kumar observed thus:- "4. Appellants also submitted that a circular was issued by the State Government on 5.5.93 in exercise of powers under Rule 17(2) of the Rules, in which no mention was made about the condition that the marks obtained at the original examination will only be taken into consideration. On 24-7-95, another circular in exercise of the same power was issued without specifying that the marks obtained at the original Secondary/Higher Secondary examination will only be considered. On 24-7-95, another circular in exercise of the same power was issued without specifying that the marks obtained at the original Secondary/Higher Secondary examination will only be considered. On the contrary, this circular in para 7(b) stated that if a candidate produces a mark-sheet for the purpose of improvement of division/marks before the last date of application or before the process for determination of merit status, it shall be considered while determining merit. This clearly indicated that the marks obtained at the subsequent examination for improvement of division/improvement of marks were to be considered for determining merit. These instructions were in force on the date of the relevant advertisement. On 20th July, 1996, another circular was issued in exercise of powers under Rule 17 of the Rules which also provided for submitting the mark-sheet of the subsequent examination taken for the improvement of division/improvement of marks before the last date of application or before commencement of the process of determination of merit." 9. The paragraph 7(b) of the circular which was under consideration before the Division Bench, in the case of Surendra Kumar is entirely different and is of no help for consideration or construction of note (b) appended to the advertisement dated 26th November, 1999. As a matter of fact, there had been no other consideration by the single Judge in the impugned order. Initially we thought of remitting the matter back to the single Judge but on a deeper thought, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we decided to consider the matter in appeal itself by construing note (b) appended to the advertisement. 10. That each of the petitioners did Praveshika after acquiring higher qualification is not in dispute. At the same time there is no dispute that none of the petitioners had done Praveshika before acquiring higher qualification. Each of the petitioners have done Praveshika only once and, therefore, there is no occasion to improve the grade or marks in Praveshika. 11. The language of note (b) appended to the advertisement dated 26th November, 1999 is plain. What it provides is that after having acquired higher qualification, the improvement in marks or grade in the lower level examination shall not be recognised for the eligibility prescribed in the advertisement. The expression, 'improvement in marks/grade' presupposes such examination having been taken earlier and then reappearing in that examination subsequently for improvement in the marks and the grade. What it provides is that after having acquired higher qualification, the improvement in marks or grade in the lower level examination shall not be recognised for the eligibility prescribed in the advertisement. The expression, 'improvement in marks/grade' presupposes such examination having been taken earlier and then reappearing in that examination subsequently for improvement in the marks and the grade. The clarification made vide note (b) has no application where the candidate has appeared in lower level examination after having acquired higher education. It only restricts the consideration of the improved marks and the grade subsequently in the lower level examination after acquiring higher qualification. 12. Seen thus, the case of none of the petitioners is covered by note (b) as none of them reappeared in the examination of Praveshika after acquiring higher qualification. Merely because the State Government has treated the examination of Praveshika equivalent to Secondary Examination, that does not mean that a candidate who has not done Praveshika and done Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education shall be treated as having done Praveshika or vice versa. By no stretch of imagination, the Secondary examination done by each of the petitioners would be taken as having done Praveshika though Praveshika is treated by the State Government equivalent to the Secondary examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. 13. Note (b) appended to the advertisement dated 26th November, 1999 does not say that any lower level examination done by a candidate after having acquired higher education shall not be considered. What it prohibits is consideration of the improved marks and grade in the same examination after having acquired higher qualification. 14. In what we have said above, the ultimate direction given by the Single Judge in the impugned order does not call for any interference though not for the reasons he has set out in the order. 15. We, accordingly, dismiss this special appeal. The parties shall bear their own expensae-litis.Appeal dismissed. *******