JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. In Misc. Application Nos.91/2017 and 90/2017: 1. This controversy came up before this Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.291/2017 and 295/2017. 2. After hearing the learned counsel the appellant, Mr. P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. D.K. Godara, learned counsel for the respondent in the aforementioned two appeals at length, this Court passed the orders on April 12, 2017 dismissing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.291/2017 and 295/2017 and upholding the impugned order dated January 30, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8432/2016 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8077/2016 respectively. 3. Before the orders dated April 12, 2017 could be signed, Mr. P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General mentioned the matter before us and sought permission to move appropriate applications to bring to the notice of this Court that Rule 266(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') was amended with effect from May 11, 2011. The mentioning culminated into D.B. Civil Misc. Applications No.90/2017 and 91/2017 preferred by Mr. P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General. 4. On such applications, this Division Bench took note of the aforesaid amendment and since the decision pronounced a day before was yet to be signed by the Bench, a notice was made to the non-applicants through their respective counsel, returnable on May 02, 2017. 5. In light of the fact that the aforesaid amendment was in fact made with effect from May 11, 2011 in Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996, the applications are allowed and the unsigned orders dated April 12, 2017 are recalled and the special appeals are re-heard and adjudicated upon afresh, in view of the relevant Rules in vogue. In D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) Nos. 291/2017, 295/2017 and 304/2017: 6. Since the controversy involved in all the three special appeals is common, therefore, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they have been heard together finally and are being decided by this common judgment. 7. Brief facts, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondents had qualified the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2015 for being qualified for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III. 7. Brief facts, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondents had qualified the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2015 for being qualified for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III. An advertisement was issued by the appellants on July 06, 2016 for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III and the last date for submission of the application form was August 01, 2016. The candidates were required to have the academic qualification of BSTC, but as per the advertisement, those candidates, who were appearing in the final year of the BSTC Course were permitted to submit the form. The result of the qualifying examination i.e. BSTC Course was declared on October 28, 2016, whereas the last date for submission of the form was August 01, 2016. 8. The learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the following proviso to Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, which is as follows :- "266. Academic qualification, A recruit must possess minimum qualification as under:- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the B.Ed./BSTC/DSE/B.Ed. (Special Education) Examination, shall be eligible to apply for the post of primary and upper primary school teachers (General Education / Special Education) but he shall have to submit proof of having acquired the said educational qualification to the (District Establishment Committee) before the declaration of the result of the competitive examination." 9. As per the aforesaid proviso, the appellants would have no case, but it was pointed out by Mr. P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General that the proviso along with Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 stood amended with effect from May 11, 2011, and therefore, the basic analogy of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge faltered, because the amended Rule 266(3) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 10. P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General that the proviso along with Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 stood amended with effect from May 11, 2011, and therefore, the basic analogy of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge faltered, because the amended Rule 266(3) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 10. The relevant portion of the Notification dated May 11, 2011 reads as follows :- "Government of Rajasthan Department of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department) Notification No. F. 4(7)Am/Rule/Legal/PR/2010/825 Jaipur, Dated 11-5-2011 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No.13 of 1994) and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, namely:- 1. Short title and commencement.-(1) These rules may be called the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011. 2. Amendment in rule 266:- The existing clause (3) of rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the said rules, shall be substituted by the following: "(3) Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher (100% by direct recruitment) (a) General Education Level - (i) Classes I to V Qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time. Level - (ii) Classes VI to VIII Qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time. (b) Special Education Level - (i) Classes I to V Qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time. Level - (ii) Classes VI to VIII Qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time. . . Level - (ii) Classes VI to VIII Qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." 11. It is settled law that a candidate, who was not fulfilling the basic eligibility criteria on the cut off date, cannot be allowed to continue to participate in the selection process. 12. In the present cases, challenge to the eligibility criteria was laid on the strength of proviso to Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996, which was existing prior to its amendment in May, 2011 by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 and once Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 was substituted by the Amendment Rules, 2011, the previous Rule lost its significance along with the proviso concerned. The earlier proviso being a component of Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 as it was then existing, stood deleted along with Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 and was substituted by the amended Rule 266(3) and did not include the language of the earlier proviso, had prompted the learned Single Judge to believe that the candidates, who were still appearing in the BSTC Course and had acquired the requisite qualification before declaration of the result of the competitive examination, were in fact entitled to participate in the recruitment process of Teacher Grade III, pursuant to the advertisement dated July 06, 2016. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case along with the Notification dated May 11, 2011, this Court is of the opinion that once the proviso permitting the candidates appearing in the final year of BSTC Course to submit a proof of their possessing the requisite educational qualification to the District Establishment Committee before declaration of the result of the competitive examination was deleted, then there will be no scope for such BSTC Course holders to enter into the fray of eligible candidates, as then admittedly, they would not have possessed the qualification of BSTC Course before the last date for submission of the application form. 14. 14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present special appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated January 30, 2017 is quashed and set aside, as the respondents do not possess the requisite education qualification uptil the cut off date notified for submission of the application forms, as per the advertisement dated July 06, 2016 and were thus, not entitled to be considered for selection, in view of the aforementioned amendment in Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 along with its proviso.