Order Since all these writ petitions involve a common controversy and are all preferred challenging the legality of a common show cause notice dated 17.4.2015 served on the petitioners proposing to cancel their appointments and the consequential termination order dated 8.5.2015 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5010/2015 (Mamta Gawan Vs. State & Anr.) and 5011/2015 (Manju Bala Vs. State & Anr.) from the civil posts of J.En. allegedly without following the procedure prescribed under law thus, are being decided by this common order. Succinctly stated the facts relevant and necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are noted herein-below:- Respondent no. 2 Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Indira Gandhi Nahar Mandal (Building), Jaipur, Rajasthan issued an advertisement dated 11.9.2013 for recruitment on 244 posts of Junior Engineers Degree (Civil). The relevant clause of the advertisement which is the bone of contention in this cluster of writ petitions is reproduced herein-below for the sake of ready reference:- ^^mijksDr ;ksX;rk ds ikB~;Øe dh vfUre o”kZ dh ijh{kk] tks lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, fu;ekas ;k vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mYysf[kr in ds fy, visf{kr ‘kS{kf.kd vgrkZ gS] esa lfEefyr gqvk ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr in ds fy, vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk fdUrq mls foHkkx }kjk p;u gsrq ijh{kk dh fnukad 10-11-2013 rd visf{kr ‘kS{kf.kd vgrkZ vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxkA** The petitioners have set up a case that by the time the advertisement came to be issued, they had commenced their final year academic session of B.E./B.Tech Civil Engineering Course in their respective universities/colleges and thus were to appear in the final year exam as mentioned in the above quoted clause of the advertisement. Two kinds of academic sessions are run by different universities and colleges; annual system and semester system. The case as set up by the petitioners is that normally, throughout the country, the academic sessions of engineering courses commence in July and culminate somewhere in April or May. The final results are declared around the months of July-August in any of the above academic systems. The case as set up by the petitioners is that normally, throughout the country, the academic sessions of engineering courses commence in July and culminate somewhere in April or May. The final results are declared around the months of July-August in any of the above academic systems. The petitioners further claim that, taking cue from the above quoted clause of the advertisement and as all of them were to appear in the final examination of the qualifying degree course, a bonafide and genuine belief was created in their minds that they were covered by the above mentioned clause of the advertisement and were entitled to apply in the selection process. Accordingly, they applied for the competitive examination to be held for the posts of J.En. advertised vide the advertisement dated 11.9.2013. While filling up the application forms, as directed in the advertisement, the petitioners herein mentioned “APP (applied)” in the relevant column of the form. The date of examination as mentioned in the advertisement was originally 10.11.2013 but was postponed and the petitioners were issued call letters for appearing in the written examination to be conducted at Jaipur on 12.1.2014. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and after evaluation of the answer sheets, all the petitioners were declared successful and stood high in the merit. It is claimed that as the petitioners secured much above the cut off marks and as they held the requisite qualification, appointment orders dated 11.8.2014 were issued offering appointment to the petitioners on the posts of J.En. on probation basis for a period of two years and directing them to join at different places in the Divisions/Sub Divisions of the Water Resources Department of the State of Rajasthan. They were also directed to have their testimonials checked and verified by the reporting officer at the time of joining. The petitioners claim that they had acquired the qualification of B.E./B.Tech by the time of joining, as required under the advertisement, and thus they reported for joining with their testimonials including the final year marks-sheets. The reporting officers verified their documents and they were allowed to assume charge of their posts. They were satisfactorily discharging their duties, when out of the blue, they received a notice dated 17.4.2015 (Annexure-8) whereby they were directed to show cause as to why their appointment should not be cancelled. The reporting officers verified their documents and they were allowed to assume charge of their posts. They were satisfactorily discharging their duties, when out of the blue, they received a notice dated 17.4.2015 (Annexure-8) whereby they were directed to show cause as to why their appointment should not be cancelled. The language of the notice has a material bearing on the fate of the instant writ petitions and is thus being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- ^^dk;kZy; eq[; vfHk;Urk] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] jktLFkku] t;iqj ¼bfUnjk xka/kh ugj e.My ¼Hkou½ Hkokuh flag ekxZ] t;iqj½ dzekad % ,Q-2 ¼dfu”B vfHk;ark½ fu;fqDr 13@LFkk&2@dfu”B vfHk;ark fnukad % 17-4-2015 ekQZr lgk;d vfHk;ark ty lalk/ku mi[k.M----------------------------------------- uksfVl bl dk;kZy; ds foKkiu la[;k 01@2013 fnukad 11-9-2013 }kjk dfu”B vfHk;ark flfoy fMxzh/kkjh lh/kh HkrhZ izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ty lalk/ku foHkkx 2013 gsrq foKkiu izlkfjr fd;k x;k FkkA mDr foKkiu esa fcUnq la[;k 6 esa ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk esa vafdr fd;k x;k FkkA ^^;ksX;rk ds ikB~;dze dh vfUre o”kZ dh ijh{kk] tks lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, fu;eksa ;k vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mYysf[kr in ds fy, visf{kr ‘kS{kf.kd vgrkZ gS] esa lfEefyr gqvk ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr in ds fy, vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk fdUrq mls foHkkx }kjk p;u gsrq ijh{kk dh fnukad 10-11-2014@12-1-2014 rd visf{kr ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxkA^^ bl dk;kZy; ds vkns’k dzekad 2875 fnukad 11-8-2014 }kjk vkidh fu;qfDr iznku dj bl dk;kZy; esa mifLFkfr nsus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k x;k Fkk mifLFkfr ds le; vki }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa ds vuqlkj fMxzh flfoy dh ;ksX;rk 2014 dks izkIr dh gS tks fd fu;qfDr dh ‘krksaZ dh iwfrZ ugha djrs gSA vr% vkidh fu;qfDr fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vki bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ dFku izLrqr djuk@lquokbZ pkgrs gSa rks vki 7 fnol esa dFku@lquokbZ gsrq viuk i{k fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ dks izLrqr djsA fu/kkZfjr le; vof/k esa dFku izkIr ugha gksus ij foKkiu dh fcUnq la[;k 6 ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vgZrk ijh{kk dh fnukad 12-1-2014 rd vftZr ugha djus ds dkj.k fu;qfDr fujLr djus dh dk;Zokgh vey esa yk;h tk;sxhA eq[; vfHk;Urk] tu lalk/ku foHkkx jktLFkku t;iqjA** The petitioners herein replied to the notice and prayed that the action proposed under the notice should be dropped as the same was totally illegal and arbitrary. The legality and validity of the said show cause notice is under challenge in the instant writ petitions. The legality and validity of the said show cause notice is under challenge in the instant writ petitions. In two cases being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5010/2015 and 5011/2015 the consequent termination orders dated 8.5.2015 came to be issued which are also challenged by the respective petitioners. Upon notices being issued, appearance was put in by Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG on behalf of the respondent State of Rajasthan and reply has been filed to the writ petitions. It is asserted in the reply that the terms of the advertisement were unambiguous and it was clearly conveyed that the aspiring candidate “should have acquired proof of completing graduation course” by the date of the competitive examination to be conducted for recruitment against the advertised posts. Admittedly, the petitioners did not acquire the proof of completing graduation course of B.E./B.Tech by the date of the competitive examination which was scheduled on 10.11.2013 as per the advertisement and even by the extended date i.e. 12.1.2014 on which the examination was actually held. It is contended that the appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis and as per the terms of the appointment order itself, their services were liable to be terminated after giving them one month’s notice. The respondents have further averred in the reply that the appointment of the petitioners was absolutely contrary to the rules and the fault appears to be at the end of the petitioners as well as officers who permitted the respective petitioners to join on their posts without verifying the testimonials in compliance of the abovequoted condition of the advertisement dated 11.9.2013. They have further set up a case that, while joining duty, the petitioners suppressed the fact that they did not acquire the requisite qualification by the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement (date of the competitive examination). Thus, the State has defended its action in proposing to cancel the appointment orders issued to the petitioners on the ground that whole endeavor of the petitioners to procure appointment was based on suppression. The officers concerned who allowed the respective petitioners to join the posts in breach of the mandatory clause of the advertisement are proposed to be proceeded with departmentally. The officers concerned who allowed the respective petitioners to join the posts in breach of the mandatory clause of the advertisement are proposed to be proceeded with departmentally. The impugned show cause notice has been justified and it is asserted that it was incumbent upon the respective candidate to ensure that he/she was possessed of the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement. It is stated that if the respective candidate is still able to satisfy that he/she had acquired the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement then such candidate would be saved from the consequences of the notice. It is further mentioned in the reply that none of the petitioners had even appeared in the final examination by the time the recruitment test was conducted and as such, they could not have entertained even a faintest hope of acquiring the requisite qualification by the date spelt out in the questioned advertisement. Mr. R.S. Saluja and Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners’ endeavour in applying for the advertised posts and appearing in the competitive examination was perfectly bonafide because they were to appear in the final year examination as mentioned in the advertisement. They argued that the conditions of advertisement are very vague and misleading inasmuch a person appeared or appearing in the final year examination has been permitted to participate in the selection process but at the same time the advertisement tends to exclude such persons who even though had commenced the final year course but their results were not declared till the date of the competitive examination. They relied upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Miss Neelima Shangla Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1986 SCC(L&S)-759 in support of their arguments. They further urged that in view of the fact that the petitioners were permitted to join after being declared successful in the competitive examination and have worked to the full satisfaction of the department for a period in excess of eight months, cancelling their appointments at this stage would cause them great hardship and result into irreparable injury inasmuch as numerous opportunities of recruitment/ higher studies were lost by the petitioners in the intervening period after they joined on their respective posts. Reference has also been made to Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 which gives power to the State to relax the conditions of recruitment and it was urged that it is a fit case for exercising the said power. Thus, they pray that as equities and sympathies weigh heavily in favour of the petitioners, this Court should feel persuaded to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in order to extend substantial justice, the writ petitions deserve to be accepted and the impugned notices/consequent termination orders deserve to be quashed. Per contra, Mr. P.R. Singh, learned A.A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Ojha representing the respondents have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners. They placed reliance upon the following Supreme Court decisions in support of the arguments and urged that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. (i) District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990) 3 SCC-655, (ii) Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6116 of 2013) decided on 29.7.2013, (iii) Bhupinderpal Singh and & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC-201, and (iv) Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC-168 (v) Alka Ojha Vs. RPSC & Anr. reported in AIR 2011SC-3547. They stressed upon the above quoted condition of the advertisement dated 11.9.2013 and submitted that the petitioners mislead the joining officers by suppressing the fact that they had not even appeared in the final examination of the degree course and as a consequence, could not have possessed the proof of qualifying degree by the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement. It was urged that the power of relaxation available under Rule 38 can only be exercised with respect to age or experience of the concerned candidate and that too in exceptional cases. Thus, it was contended that the petitioners are not entitled to relief claimed for in the instant writ petitions. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record, the relevant rules and the case law cited at the bar. Thus, it was contended that the petitioners are not entitled to relief claimed for in the instant writ petitions. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record, the relevant rules and the case law cited at the bar. From the above quoted condition of the advertisement which is subject to scrutiny in the instant writ petition, it is evident that it was clearly prescribed therein that the applicant must possess the proof of obtaining requisite qualification by the date of competitive examination which was fixed in the advertisement as 10.11.2013. It is understood in view of the above quoted clause of the advertisement that it was the obligation of the petitioners to have satisfied themselves that they were duly qualified or were reasonably hopeful of achieving the requisite eligibility criterion of graduation by the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement. Failure to understand or ignorance of the terms of the advertisement, cannot give any right to the petitioners to claim a benefit contrary to the terms thereof. The controversy thus only revolves around the issue as to whether, the action of the concerned authority in permitting the petitioners who were successful in the competitive examination to join pursuant to the issuance of the appointment orders even though they were not possessed of the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement Annexure-2 can be held to be a ground for extending equity based relief and allowing the petitioners to continue on their respective posts. It is not disputed that the petitioners were offered appointment by the order dated 11.8.2014 on purely temporary basis and they were required to undergo probation period for two years before they could be confirmed in service. The terms of the appointment order were clear to the effect that the petitioners were required to have their testimonials checked by the reporting officer at their respective place of posting. The very terms of the advertisement made it obligatory upon the petitioners to submit the testimonials for verification in total compliance thereof and nothing short of that. The terms of the appointment order were clear to the effect that the petitioners were required to have their testimonials checked by the reporting officer at their respective place of posting. The very terms of the advertisement made it obligatory upon the petitioners to submit the testimonials for verification in total compliance thereof and nothing short of that. Merely because the joining officers, permitted the petitioners to join in ignorance of the conditions of advertisement, that by itself would not give any right to the petitioners to continue to hold on to the posts even though they were not duly qualified for the same in terms of the advertisement. The petitioners are all educated people. The terms of the advertisement were clear to the effect that the applying candidate must hold the qualification i.e. proof of graduation in engineering by the date of the competitive examination. The date for conducting the examination notified as per the advertisement was 10.11.2013 and was later on postponed to 12.1.2014. The petitioners had just begun their final academic session in the year 2013. The petitioners have themselves set up a case that as per the common practice in the country, the final academic sessions of various institutions offering Engineering Courses begins in July and culminates by May/June and degrees are provided in July-August. Thus having begun the session in July, the petitioners could not have entertained even a remotest hope of acquiring the requisite qualification by the date mentioned in the advertisement Further, if the petitioners were aggrieved by the so called unreasonableness of the above condition of the advertisement, then in such a situation, they were required to challenge it in advance and before participating in the selection process. If, in the petitioners’ view, the condition which, on the one hand permitted a candidate beginning his/her final year of engineering course to appear in the competitive examination and simultaneously, imposed a virtually impossible task of acquiring the degree even before the academic session could be concluded was unreasonably constrictive, then, they should have challenged the same before applying in the selection process. Having once submitted and acquiesced to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise an objection regarding the so-called unreasonableness thereof. Having once submitted and acquiesced to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise an objection regarding the so-called unreasonableness thereof. They can also not be permitted to take the defence of ignorance because it was obligatory upon them to have acquired full knowledge, understanding and import of the terms and conditions of the advertisement before applying therein. Now coming to the issue of relaxation. It being an admitted case on record that none of the petitioners had even appeared in the final year examination, by the time, the competitive test was held, the petitioners would have been better and well advised not to apply in the questioned selection process. If at all the terms of advertisement are relaxed to adjust the petitioners, it would amount to committing a gross injustice and hostile discrimination with such other candidates who despite having commenced their final year of graduation in B.E./B.Tech. did not apply in the same selection process after understanding the import of the requirements of the advertisement. Therefore, permitting the petitioners to continue on the posts would be nothing short of allowing the illegality which was committed in permitting them to join the posts in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement to be perpetuated. The relaxation which is claimed by the petitioners on the strength of Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 is not permissible because even as per the admitted case set up in the writ petitions and as per the language of the rule, relaxation can be permitted only in relation to age and experience. No relaxation is permitted regarding the minimum qualification. As the petitioners, were admittedly not holding the requisite qualification on the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement, they definitely were not entitled to be appointed on the posts of Junior Engineer in the questioned selection process. The ratio of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra), Bhupinderpal Singhand & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra) and Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. The ratio of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra), Bhupinderpal Singhand & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra) and Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan (supra) squarely cover the controversy involved in these writ petitions and thus, the challenge given to the impugned notice (Annexure-15) and the termination orders (Annexure-10 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5011/2015 and Annexure-11 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5010/2015) is not sustainable. Some relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- “It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a part to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact” The facts of the said case apply on all fours to the facts of the cases at hand, the only difference being that in the above case, despite the order of appointment being issued, the candidate therein was not allowed to join service whereas in the case at hand, the petitioners were permitted to join and work on the posts. Hon’ble Supreme Court termed the appointment in disregard of the specific qualification mentioned in the advertisement to be a public fraud. The facts in the case of Alka Ojha Vs. R.P.S.C. (supra) are even harsher. Hon’ble Supreme Court termed the appointment in disregard of the specific qualification mentioned in the advertisement to be a public fraud. The facts in the case of Alka Ojha Vs. R.P.S.C. (supra) are even harsher. In that case, in pursuance of the selection, the petitioners therein worked on the respective posts for a period of five years but despite that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the State Government to cancel the appointment of petitioners therein who had put in 5 years of service and repelled the prayer to save the services of the respective petitioners in order to do substantial justice by exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Some relevant excerpts of the above judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- “The delay in filing SLP(C) CC Nos.13191 and 13504-13506 of 2011 is condoned. 2. The questions which arise for consideration in these petitions are whether the qualifications prescribed in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short, "the Rules") for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector are mandatory and whether the petitioners, who were appointed as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors in compliance of the direction given by the learned single Judge of the High Court are entitled to continue in service despite reversal of the order of the learned single Judge by the Division Bench. 3. In response to advertisement dated 1.10.2001 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission"), the petitioners applied for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors. The last date fixed for submission of the application was 19.11.2001. Although as on that date, none of the petitioners possessed driving licence authorising them to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles, all of them were provisionally allowed to take part in the written examination and the interview and their names were included in the select list prepared by the Commission. However, after final scrutiny of the papers the Commission cancelled the tentative selection of the petitioners on the ground that as on the last date fixed for submission of the application, they did not possess the required driving licence. 4. However, after final scrutiny of the papers the Commission cancelled the tentative selection of the petitioners on the ground that as on the last date fixed for submission of the application, they did not possess the required driving licence. 4. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners questioning the cancellation of their selection were allowed by the learned single Judge, who referred to the qualifications specified in paragraph 13 of the advertisement and held that when the requirement of the educational qualifications could be relaxed, there was no justification to deny appointment to the petitioners on the ground that they did not have the required driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application. 5. The special appeals filed by the Commission were admitted by the Division Bench of the High Court but its prayer for interim stay was rejected with an observation that if any appointment is made, the same will be subject to the decision of the appeal. For the sake of reference, the relevant portions of order dated 26.10.2004 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.494 of 2004 are extracted below: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application also. Considering the submissions, no case is made out for stay. Consequently, the stay application stands rejected. However, it is also made clear that if any appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector is made, that will be subject to the decision of this appeal. List the appeal itself for hearing in the month of December, 2004, as prayed for." 6. When the special appeals were taken up for hearing, the Division Bench noticed that in R.P.S.C. v. Shri Manish Thakur another Division Bench had adversely commented upon the order of the learned single Judge and referred the matter to the larger Bench for deciding the following question: "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?" 7. The Full Bench of the High Court referred to the relevant provisions of the Rules, the judgments of this Court in U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P. v. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 : (1994 AIR SCW 2861), Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 and held: "..............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 provided 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, it 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. 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. 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 cut 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. 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." (Emphasis supplied) 8. After the judgment of the Full Bench, the special appeals were placed before the Division Bench for final disposal. The Division Bench referred to the definitions of the terms 'driving licence' and 'learner's licence' contained in Section 2(10) and 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), order dated 20.5.2004 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.252 of 2003 and held that the respondents (petitioners herein), who did not possess one of the prescribed qualifications i.e., the driving licence as on the last date fixed for submission of the application, were not eligible to be considered for selection. However, the Division Bench accepted the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners that they be allowed to participate in the process of fresh selection by providing relaxation in age and directed the Commission to complete the process of fresh selection within three months. The Division Bench also directed that for a period of three months status quo shall be maintained with regard to those who are in service. 9. S/Shri P.P. Rao, S.P. Sharma, Colin Gonsalves and Rakesh K. Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the High Court's interpretation of the qualifications specified in the Schedule appended to the Rules is erroneous and the petitioners were wrongly treated ineligible because on the date of interview they were having all the qualifications including the driving licence. S/Shri P.P. Rao, S.P. Sharma, Colin Gonsalves and Rakesh K. Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the High Court's interpretation of the qualifications specified in the Schedule appended to the Rules is erroneous and the petitioners were wrongly treated ineligible because on the date of interview they were having all the qualifications including the driving licence. Shri S.P. Sharma further argued that the requirement of having the driving licence cannot be treated as mandatory because the same is not imperative for discharging the duties of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector and the candidates who had obtained learner's licence before the last date fixed for submission of the application are entitled to be appointed because such licence authorised them to drive motor cycle etc. Shri Rakesh K. Khanna supported the argument of Shri S.P. Sharma and pointed out as per the definition of 'learner's licence', the licensee is authorised to drive a motor vehicle of the specified class or description. Shri Rakesh K. Khanna also produced xerox of the learner's licence of Sanjay Kumar (petitioner in SLP(C) No. 22044/2011) to show that by virtue of that licence, he was entitled to drive heavy goods vehicles. Shri P.P. Rao and other learned senior counsel then argued that even if this Court is inclined to approve the impugned judgment, the petitioners should be allowed to continue in service because the provisions contained in the Schedule appended to the Rules were vague and only after the judgment of the Full Bench, it became clear that for being treated eligible, the candidate must possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application. Learned counsel submitted that it will be extremely harsh for the petitioners to be thrown out of service after they have served for five years and have crossed the upper age limit prescribed for other posts. In the end, learned counsel submitted that the order of status quo passed by the Division Bench may be extended because the Commission has not been able to make fresh selection for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub- Inspector. 10. On 19.8.2011, the Court had, while reserving order in SLP(C) Nos.21462, 22044 and 23039 of 2011 permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to furnish to the Court Master copies of the licence which their clients possessed on the date of application. 10. On 19.8.2011, the Court had, while reserving order in SLP(C) Nos.21462, 22044 and 23039 of 2011 permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to furnish to the Court Master copies of the licence which their clients possessed on the date of application. Taking advantage of the liberty given by the Court, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP (C) No. 21462/2011 made available photostat copies of the learner's licences (Annexures A-1 to A-3) issued to her client. Shri Nikilesh Ramachandran, learned counsel representing the petitioner in SLP(C) No. 22044/2011 filed affidavit of his client along with xerox copy of learner's licence issued in his favour. 11. For deciding the questions framed in the opening paragraph of this order, it will be useful to notice Rule 11 and the relevant extracts of the Schedule appended to the Rules. The same are as under: "11. Academic and Technical qualifications. - A candidate for direct recruitment to the post specified in the Schedule shall possess (1) the qualification given in column 4 of the Schedule, and (2) "Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture." 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 recruit1. Must have passed Secondary Examination of a recognized Board; and ment 3. A Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years' course) or a diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Examination (3 years' course) OR Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the Central Government or State Government; and 3. Working experience of at least one year in a reputed Automobile Workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines; and 4. Must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive Motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger 10 vehicles. Working experience of at least one year in a reputed Automobile Workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines; and 4. Must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive Motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger 10 vehicles. Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to persons whose names were under consideration for appointment to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles or Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles (by whatever names called by the State Government prior to first day of July, 1989 or to an officer appointed to such post before the first day of July, 1989 or to an officer appointed to discharge functions of a nontechnical nature." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Paragraph 13 of the advertisement issued by the Commission, which is also relevant for deciding the issue raised by the petitioners reads thus: "13. Educational Qualification:- (1) Passed Secondary Examination from any recognized Board. (2) Awarded by the State Technical Education Board - Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years' course) Or Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (3 years' course) Or Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the Central Government or State Government; and (3) Working experience of at least one year in a reputed Automobile Workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor fitted with petrol and diesel engines; and (4) Must hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive Motor Cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles. But, such candidate who appeared in the final year of the course for such educational qualification sought for as per the Rules or is going to appear in such examination, will be eligible to submit application but he has to submit the certificate passing the specified qualification before the interview. (5) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and the knowledge of the culture of Rajasthan." (Emphasis supplied) 13. The use of word "shall" in Rule 11 makes it clear that the qualifications specified in the Schedule are mandatory and a candidate aspiring for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector by direct recruitment must possess those qualifications and must have working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture. The use of word "shall" in Rule 11 makes it clear that the qualifications specified in the Schedule are mandatory and a candidate aspiring for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector by direct recruitment must possess those qualifications and must have working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture. A conjoint reading of Rule 11, the relevant entries of the Schedule and paragraph 13 of the advertisement shows that a person who does not possess the prescribed educational and technical qualifications, working experience and a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles cannot compete for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. 14. The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262 : ( AIR 2000 SC 2011 : 2000 AIR SCW 1888), this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669 , District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 , M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429 : (1993 AIR SCW 1412), Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana, (1994 AIR SCW 2861) (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (supra) and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: "..... (3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana, (1994 AIR SCW 2861) (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (supra) and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: "..... 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 and 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 same view was reiterated in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 : (AIR 2003 SC 3821 : 2003 AIR SCW 4377) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 . Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court rightly held that a candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for selection. 15. Unfortunately, the learned single Judge decided the writ petitions without even adverting to Rule 11, the relevant entries of the Schedule and paragraph 13 of the advertisement and issued direction which amounted to amendment of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. This was clearly impermissible. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the direction given by the learned single Judge, which facilitated appointment of the petitioners despite the fact that they were not eligible to be considered for selection. xxxxx 20. We shall now consider the question whether despite reversal of the order passed by the learned single Judge by the Division Bench of the High Court, the petitioners can continue in service. The submission of the learned counsel that this Court should invoke Article 142 of the Constitution and direct the competent authority to allow the petitioners to continue in service because they have already completed more than 5 years' service sounds attractive but lacks merit. The submission of the learned counsel that this Court should invoke Article 142 of the Constitution and direct the competent authority to allow the petitioners to continue in service because they have already completed more than 5 years' service sounds attractive but lacks merit. In our view, the power under Article 142 cannot be exercised for conferring legitimacy to the appointment of the petitioners, who, as held hereinabove, were not eligible to be considered for selection. The Commission had provisionally allowed the petitioners to take part in the written test and the interview, but their tentative selection was cancelled because at the stage of final scrutiny, it was found that they did not possess one of the prescribed qualifications i.e. driving licence authorising them to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles. Notwithstanding this, the competent authority was compelled to appoint the petitioners because while entertaining the special appeals, the Division Bench of the High Court declined to stay the direction given by the learned Single Judge. If the course suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners is adopted, then every illegal appointment will get regularized by judicial fiat and those who are eligible and more meritorious will be deprived of their constitutional right to be fairly considered for selection and appointment against the advertised posts. The judgments of this Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar (1993) 3 SCC 591 , Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, (1993 AIR SCW 1488) (supra), Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 2000 SC 2011 : 2011 AIR SCW 1888) (supra) and other similar judgments cannot be pressed into service for issuing a direction for the petitioners' continuance in service because in those cases, the selection and/or appointments were made otherwise than by judicial intervention and this Court held that the candidate should not suffer due to the fault of the public authorities. 21. A half-hearted attempt was made by Shri Rakesh K. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP(C) No.22044 of 2011 to draw solace from the last line contained in order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.494 of 2004 wherein it was observed that the question of regularisation has to be considered by the RPSC/State Government. In this context, it is sufficient to observe that there is no provision in the Rules under which the Commission or the State Government can regularise the appointment of a person, who was not eligible to compete for selection. 22. In the result, the special leave petitions are dismissed. However, keeping in view the statement of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Commission has not completed the process of selection for fresh recruitment of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors, we direct the Commission to do the needful within a period of next 4 months. Till then, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service. The Secretary of the Commission shall send a report to the High Court about compliance of the directions given by the Division Bench and this Court for completing the process of selection. 23. It is needless to say that the order of status quo passed by the High Court and the direction given by this Court for the petitioners' continuance in service will not enure to their advantage and the Commission shall make selection without being influenced by those orders. 24. Copies of this order be sent to the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer and Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur by fax. Petitions dismissed.” Seen in the context of the above quoted observations and the ratio of the other judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned notice whereby the petitioners were asked to show cause as to why the appointments procured by them in contravention of the terms of the advertisement should not be cancelled and the termination order dated 8.5.2015 Annexure-10 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5011/2015 (Manju Bala Vs. State & Anr.) and Annexure-11 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5010/2015 (Mamta Gawan Vs. State & Anr.) do not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness so as to call for any interference in the instant writ petitions. It cannot be gainsaid that such petitioners who are able to satisfy the authorities regarding fulfillment of the conditions of the advertisement by the last date mentioned therein will be entitled for protection of their services. As a consequence of the above discussion there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. The stay applications are also dismissed. No order as to costs.