JUDGMENT 1. - Following question has been referred for consideration by the Larger Bench: "Whether as per the educational, qualifications mentioned in Clause 13 of the advertisement, the driving licence and experience should be possessed by the candidate on the last date of filing the application or on or before the date of Interview?" BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASEMatter pertains to selection on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector pursuant to advertisement dated 1.10.2001. 2. Learned counsel appearing for Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the RPSC') submits that as per Para 13 of advertisement, a candidate was required to possess one year experience of repairing light motor vehicle, heavy motor vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle from a reputed Automobile Workshop apart from a driving licence authorising to drive motor cycle, heavy motor vehicle and passenger motor vehicle. Aforesaid qualification was required on the last date of submission of the application. A candidate was also required to possess qualification of secondary education and diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years course) or diploma in Mechanical Engineering (3 years course) or any equivalent qualification recognised by Central Government or State Government. Aforesaid qualification was required to be possessed before date of interview. The RPSC proceeded with the selection strictly as per the conditions narrated above, which were otherwise in consonance with the amendment made in the Service Rules. Vide a notification various Service Rules were amended in the year 1999. Pursuant to aforesaid amendment, only for educational qualification, an amendment was made, which reads thus: "2. The RPSC proceeded with the selection strictly as per the conditions narrated above, which were otherwise in consonance with the amendment made in the Service Rules. Vide a notification various Service Rules were amended in the year 1999. Pursuant to aforesaid amendment, only for educational qualification, an amendment was made, which reads thus: "2. Amendment - In the existing rule as mentioned in Column Number 3 against each of the Service Rules as mentioned in Column Number 2 of the Schedule appended herewith, the following proviso shall be added, namely : "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 he/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 made through only written examination or only interview, as the case may be." 3. Aforesaid amendment was made in all Services Rules which includes Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules of 1963'). In view of aforesaid amendment, a candidate, appearing in final year examination of requisite educational qualification for the post, was eligible to apply for the post but required to submit proof of having acquired the requisite, educational qualification at the time prescribed under amended rule 2(i) (ii) (iii). 4. Learned counsel for RPSC submits that Para 13 of advertisement is quite clear. The eligibility qualification given therein was required to be possessed on or before the last date of submission of application and exception was made for those candidates, who are pursuing their last year's study of qualifying examination, to produce certificates of requisite educational qualification before date of interview. In view of Division Bench judgment of this Court on the same issue, there was no occasion for another Division Bench to refer the matter to the Larger Bench, more specifically, when it is not a case where two divergent judgments of Division Bench exist. In view of Division Bench judgment of this Court on the same issue, there was no occasion for another Division Bench to refer the matter to the Larger Bench, more specifically, when it is not a case where two divergent judgments of Division Bench exist. The issue is otherwise covered by the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Larger Bench may accordingly consider judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 525 of 2003, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another v. Shri Manish Thakur, decided on 20.5.2004 , for answering the reference. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for candidates submit that Para 13 of advertisement is having heading 'educational qualification' and therein various requirements like experience, driving licence and other qualifications have been provided, thus note appended requiring educational qualifications on or before start of interview remains for entire Para 13 of advertisement. The RP5C, however, taken an erroneous interpretation, by virtue of which one and same clause has been divided in two parts requiring different cut off dates, which is not proper and correct. It cannot be that for driving licence and experience, the last date of submission of application forms becomes relevant and for others, the date of interview. The RPSC was required to take a harmonious construction of clause 13 and, as requirement of educational qualification is before the date of interview, the RPSC should not have taken requirement of driving licence and experience as on the last date of submission of the application forms. Learned Single Judge had thus, taken a proper view. However, the said view was reversed by the Division Bench. While matter was argued before another coordinate Division Bench, reference was ordered to be made to the Larger Bench as coordinate Bench was convinced with the proposition advanced by the petitioners. Referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is submitted that the golden rule laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that last date for eligibility is to be determined based on statutory provision, if it is provided under the Statute. In absence of specific provision in the statutory rules, required date can be specified in the advertisement and if no date is provided in the statutory provision or even in the advertisement, then it is the last date of submission of the application forms. In absence of specific provision in the statutory rules, required date can be specified in the advertisement and if no date is provided in the statutory provision or even in the advertisement, then it is the last date of submission of the application forms. In the present matter, educational qualification was required to be possessed on or before date of interview, all the candidates were eligible for selection and appointment. The RPSC, however, failed to act as per mandate of clause 13 of the advertisement. Now, at this stage, when all the candidates have been given appointment as per their merit position, it may not be disturbed while answering the reference. 6. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and given our thoughtful consideration. 7. Before discussing the issue, it is necessary to take note of term of reference. As per term of the reference, this Court is to answer as to whether driving licence and experience has to be possessed by the candidates on the last date of filing of the application forms or before the date of interview? For this purpose, we have to look into clause 13 of advertisement. Clause 13 of advertisement having heading 'educational qualification' and whereupon It Is, divided in two parts; A & B. Part A is having further four parts. First two parts talks about possession of required education, whereas other parts i.e. 3 & 4 talk about experience and driving licence. Referring to heading 'educational qualification', counsel appearing for appellants/candidates developed two fold arguments. First argument is that when a note is appended in regard to educational qualification not only for educational requirement but experience and driving licence, then note having been appended at the last should govern all the conditions given above. The second argument is that one and same clause cannot provide two cut off dates; one for educational requirement and other for experience and driving licence. In view of aforesaid, the RPSC was required to take a harmonious construction of clause and thereby not only educational requirement but requirement of experience and driving licence should have been taken on the date of interview. Aforesaid proposition is looked into by us not only in reference to Para 13 of advertisement but after going through the Rules as amended in the year 1999. Aforesaid proposition is looked into by us not only in reference to Para 13 of advertisement but after going through the Rules as amended in the year 1999. To make an interpretation to clause 13 of advertisement, it is necessary to look into the Rules so as to gather proper interpretation as it has to be in consonance with the statutory provision also. A schedule is appended to the Rules of 1963 wherein against each post required qualification is provided. For ready reference schedule is quoted hereunder to the extent it is rerevant for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector: SCHEDULE Name of Post Source of Recruitment with percentage Qualification for Direct recruitment Post from which appointment by promotion is to be made Minimum experience and qualifications required for promotion 2. Motor Vehicle sub-Inspector 25% by promotion 75% by direct recruitment 1. Must have passed Secondary Examination of a recognised Board; and 2. A Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years' course) or a diploma ill Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Examination (3 years' course) OR Any qualification in either of the above discipline declared equivalent by the Central Government or state Government; and 3. Working experience of at least one dear in a reputed Automobile Workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fifted with petrol and diesel engines; and 4...... 8. Perusal of the Rules shows that column No.3 does provide heading 'educational qualification' but Is Having heading 'Qualification for Direct Recruitment'. In the aforesaid heading, there exists requirement of educational qualification so also driving licence and experience. As against the aforesaid. Rules, RPSC while. Issuing advertisement given heading 'educational qualification in Para 13 of advertisement and it became an issue of confusion in the minds of the candidates though bare perusal of note appended to Para 13 of advertisement keeps no room of doubt and confusion for its interpretation. As per note appended, a candidate needs to be possess required education qualification on or before the date of interview and it has specifically been provided that a candidate appeared in final year examination or going to appear, then he/she would be eligible to make application but required educational certificates is to be possessed on or before the date of interview. Para 13 of advertisement is reproduced hereunder for ready referense: " 13- 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ( v )( 1 ) fdlh ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ls lSdaMjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gks( (2) jkT; rduhdh f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk iznRr% vkVkseksckby batfu;fjax esa fMIyksek ( rhu o"khZ; ikB~;dze ) vFkok ;kaf=d vfHk;kaf=d esa fMIyksek ( rhu o"khZ; ikB~;dze ) vFkok mi;qZDr esa ls fdlh Hkh fo"k; esa dksbZ vgZrk dsUnzh; ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk lerqY; ?kksf"kr dh x;h gks] vkSj (3) fdlh [;kfr izkIr vkVkseksckby dk;Z'kkyk] ftlesa isV~ksy ,oa Mhty baftu ls ;qDr gYds eksVj okguksa Hkkjh eky okguksa vkSj Hkkjh ;k=h eksVj okguksa dh ejEer dh tkrh gks esa dk;Z djus dk de ls de ,d o"kZ ds vuqHko vkSj (4) mlds ikl ,d M~kbZfoax ykblsal gksuk pkfg, tks mls eksVj lkbZfdy] Hkkjh eky okguksa vkSj ;k=h okguksa dks pykus ds fy, vf/kd'r djrk gks] ijUrq] ,sls vH;FkhZ tks fu;ekuqlkj pkgh xbZ 'kSf{kd vgZrk ds vafre o"kZ dh ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gq, gSa ;k lfEefyr gksus okys gSa] mDr ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu djus ds ik= gksaxs] fdUrq mUgsa mDr inksa ds lk{kkRdkj izkjEHk gksus ds iwoZ vkisf{kr 'kSf{kd vgZrk izkIr djus dk izek.k nsuk gksxkA ( c ) nsoukxjh fyih esa fyf[kr fgUnh dk O;kogkfjd Kku rFkk jktLFkku dh laLd'fr dk KkuA " 9. Perusal of language of proviso shows that there exists no indication to possess driving licence and experience on or before the date of interview. It is only the candidate appearing or has already appeared in final year of qualifying educational examination that he/she may apply for the post and submit result before the date of interview.10. Question now comes as to whether one and same clause can have two cut off dates. To answer aforesaid settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. If law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is taken note of, then date of required eligibility has been divided with 3 different situations i.e., (I) the date of required eligibility would be as provided under the statutory rules; (ii) in absence of any specific statutory provision, last date of eligibility or educational, qualification can be provided in the advertisement and (iii) in absence of a specific date to possess eligibility and qualification in the statutory rules and not specified in the advertisement, then it would be taken to be last date of submission of the application forms. Aforesaid legal position is settled in view of various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, few judgments are referred out of many. In case of Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 , the aforesaid issue was extensively dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Para 13 sums up the issue, thus aforesaid para is quoted as under: "13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in' Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, A.P Public Service Commission , V.B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi , Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan , M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana , the High Court has held (i) that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decision of this Court and is, therefore, well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice." 11. Same view was taken by the Apex Court In case of Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 wherein also last date of submission of application forms was taken as a cut off date for possessing. requisite educational qualification. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chandra Shekhar, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , while deciding the review petition and' in case of U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and another v. Alpana, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 and many other cases same view exists. requisite educational qualification. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chandra Shekhar, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , while deciding the review petition and' in case of U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and another v. Alpana, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 and many other cases same view exists. The proposition given above has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for candidates, rather they have admitted that it is a settled law, that if statutory rules and the advertisement are silent for providing cut off date of required eligibility, it would be the last date of submission of the application forms. In reference to aforesaid legal position, if rules and advertisement are looked into, then it becomes clear that so far as required educational eligibility is concerned, a candidate appearing in last year examination or has already appeared, can apply for selection, subject to possessing educational certificates on or before the date of interview. Thus, in view of the facts and legal position, the eligibility date for educational qualification being provtded not only under the rules but also in advertisement, accordingly it has to be taken the date of interview. So far as experience and driving licence are concerned, if is provided under the heading of "Qualification for Direct Recruitment", if schedule appended to the Rules is looked into, however, contrary to statutory rules heading given under Para 13 of advertisement is 'educational qualification'. In view of aforesaid, firstly it is only the statutory rules and not the condition in the advertisement, will govern the subject because anything contrary to statutory rules cannot be accepted or given effect to which, ultimately violates the statutory rules. This Is only to clarify the confusion, kept in mind by candidates from heading of clause 13 of advertisement. Since schedule, provides heading "Qualification for Direct Recruitment", which Includes driving licence, experience and educational qualification, thus there are 3 different requirements for candidates to become eligible and out of which for educational qualification, a separate cut off date has been given under the rules as well as in the advertisement whereas rules as well as advertisement are silent regarding cut off date to possess experience and driving licence. As per legal proposition referred above,it can be only the last date of submission of application. As per legal proposition referred above,it can be only the last date of submission of application. Thus, in our view, Division Bench of this Court In case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another v. Shri Manish Thakur has rightly settled the Issue. It Is, however, made clear that there can be different cut off dates for eligibility criteria, which exist even If Interpretation given by learned counsel for parties are accepted. Under the Rules of 1963, eligibility in regard to age Is the first day of January following the last date fixed for application. As against cut off date of age, a different out off date has been given for other eligibility, thus it is not necessary that one and same cut off date has to be provided for all eligibility.12. In view of aforesaid, our answer to reference Is that as per clause 13 of advertisement, driving licence and experience are required to be possessed by the candidates on the last date of submission of the application forms and not on or before the date of interview.13. Let the judgment be placed before the Division Bench hearing appeals for its decision and appellants are given liberty to argue other issues, which include the effect of their appointment and continuance in service thereof for last few years.Reference Answered as Above. *******