JUDGMENT : 1. Instant batch of appeals has been filed against common order passed by the Ld. Single Judge impugned dt.26-4-2017 disposing of writ petitions taking note of Clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 pursuant to which recruitments were made to the post of Teacher Gr.III Level-I & II Primary & Upper Primary. 2. The post of Teacher Gr.III is included in the Schedule appended to Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. Rules, 1996 and the conditions of eligibility are prescribed u/R.266(3) of the Rules, 1996. It may be noticed that under the pre-amended Scheme of Rules,1996, u/R.266, a proviso was added vide notification dt.1-7-2004 making intention of the rule making authority clear, in enlarging the scope of the prospective candidates to participate in the selection process who had appeared in the professional courses B.Ed./BSTC/DSE/ B.Ed. (General/Special Education) to be considered eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III Level-I & II Primary & Upper Primary provided they submit proof of having acquired the qualifying examination before the date of declaration of result of the written examination to be conducted by the recruiting authority for the post of Teacher Gr.III Primary & Upper Primary included in the Schedule appended to the Rules,1996 and we consider it appropriate to quote the proviso added vide notification dt.1-7-2004 to R.266 ad infra :- "R.266(3) :- .. ..... [Provided further that the person who has appeared in the B.Ed./B.S.T.C. examination shall be eligible to apply for the post of primary and upper primary school teacher but he shall have to submit proof of having acquired the said educational qualification to the [Distt. Establishment Committee] before the declaration of result of the said examination." 3. It reveals from the record that the qualifying examination for the post of Teacher Gr.III Primary & Upper Primary prescribed u/R.266(3) was substituted vide amendment notification dt.11-5-2011 but the proviso which was added pursuant to notification dt.1-7-2004 has neither deleted nor substituted vide notification dt.11-5-2011. 4. Although statement was made by the Government Counsel before the Ld. Single Judge that vide notification dt.11-5-2011 the proviso which was added vide notification dt.1-7-2004 stands deleted. We have our reservation to say that substitution of educational qualification vide amendment notification dt.11-5-2011 would not delete the proviso which was already existing u/R.266 of the Scheme of Rules, 1996 be that as it may. Single Judge that vide notification dt.11-5-2011 the proviso which was added vide notification dt.1-7-2004 stands deleted. We have our reservation to say that substitution of educational qualification vide amendment notification dt.11-5-2011 would not delete the proviso which was already existing u/R.266 of the Scheme of Rules, 1996 be that as it may. It is not disputed that there is neither any condition nor rule in the Scheme of Rules nor after the amendment notification dt.11-5-2011 which indicates as to on what date a candidate is supposed to possess the qualifying examination, although as already observed, prior to the amendment notification dt.11-5-2011 the rule making authority has made its intention clear by adding proviso vide notification dt.-1-7-2004 as to on what date the candidates who are permitted to participate in the selection process is supposed to possess the qualifying examination. 5. In the given circumstances the rule making authority published advertisement dt.24-2-2012 for various districts and invited applications for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level-I & II Primary & Upper Primary to appear in Teacher Gr.III Direct Recruitment Written Competitive Examination 2012. Under the said advertisement the candidates were made known of clause-7 indicating that those who had appeared in B.Ed./BSTC/ DSE/B.Ed. (General/Special Education) & participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher Gr.III Primary & Upper Primary, they have to submit proof of holding eligibility before the date of declaration of result of the written examination conducted by the recruiting authority pursuant to advertisement in reference to which the selection process was initiated and it will be appropriate to quota clause no.7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 ad infra :- 6. It is further informed that result of written examination held pursuant to advertisement dt.24-2-2012 was revised thrice and since R.266 is silent as alleged that on which date eligibility of a candidate is to be looked into and in the advertisement it was made clear to the candidates that it will be looked into before the date of declaration of result of the written examination. 7. It is further informed to this Court that the advertisement has taken note of 32000 vacancies in various districts and appointments have been made almost in all the districts taking note of clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 of which reference has been made. 7. It is further informed to this Court that the advertisement has taken note of 32000 vacancies in various districts and appointments have been made almost in all the districts taking note of clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 of which reference has been made. At this stage the Government took a 'U' turn and issued a circular dt.24-11-2016 that it may now be advisable to revisit eligibility of candidate to be looked into on the date of submission of application in contravention of clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012. We are unable to persuade ourselves as to what was the justification available for the Government in changing the condition of eligibility which indisputably was not in conflict with the Scheme of Rules, 1996. After the circular was issued by the Government dt.24-11- 2016, that came to be challenged by the candidates whose eligibility in terms of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 was to be re-looked on the last date of application form and not before declaration of result of the written examination obviously they stood eliminated from the zone of consideration and before the Ld. Single Judge of this Court the Government Counsel consented that by issuance of circular dt.24-11-2016 an unwanted litigation has been created and once there was a condition clause-7 in the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 permitting such of the candidates who appeared in the professional courses like B.Ed./BSTC/DSE/B.Ed.(General/Special Education) etc., to be considered eligible & to participate in the selection process and their eligibility shall be considered before the date of declaration of result of the written examination obviously no such change was required, more so when large number of appointments have been made of the candidates in various districts taking note of clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 and the Ld. Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in terms of the statement of Govt. Counsel taking note of clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012, under its order impugned dt.26-4-2017. 8. Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in terms of the statement of Govt. Counsel taking note of clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012, under its order impugned dt.26-4-2017. 8. The candidates who are before the Court in appeal before us, obviously are eligible even in terms of Clause-7 of the advertisement but their grievance is that after the amendment has been made vide notification dt.11-5-2011 and the proviso added to R.266 which was earlier inserted by amendment notification dt.1-7-2004 stands deleted the recruiting authority is under obligation to look into the conditions of eligibility as on the last date of submission of application and this what the Government has noticed in its circular dt.24-11-2016 and what is being observed by the Ld. Single Judge in its order impugned requires reconsideration and according to appellants' counsel clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 is supplanting the Scheme of Rules and needs interference by this Court and in support of submission placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench passed before the Main Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 304/2017 (State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Maga Ram & Ors.) decided on 2-5-2017. 9. Sh. S.K. Gupta Additional Advocate General, Sh. Vigyan Shah Adv., Sh. Kailash Jangid Adv., Sh. Vikram Singh Bhati Adv. & on the other hand jointly submits that even after the amendment notification dt.11-5-2011, since the rule is silent the recruiting authority can always lay down conditions of eligibility and in the instant case the recruiting authority has considered it appropriate to consider eligibility on the date of declaration of result of the written examination in terms of clause-7 of the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 and accordingly eligibility of the candidate who had participated in the selection process and further submits that after the govt. counsel made its stand clear to the Court which has been noticed by the Ld. Single Judge in its order impugned, needs no further interference by this Court. 10. We have heard the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. counsel made its stand clear to the Court which has been noticed by the Ld. Single Judge in its order impugned, needs no further interference by this Court. 10. We have heard the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. As already noticed by us the proviso added to R.266 of the Scheme of Rules,1996 vide amendment notification dt.1-7-2004 is a clarificatory note enlarging the scope of the prospective candidates to participate in the selection process and their eligibility shall be looked into on the date of declaration of result of the written examination obviously conducted by the recruiting authority and this was notified under clause-7 by the recruiting authority while holding selections in its advertisement dt.24-2-2012. It is not the case of the appellants that there is any rule to the contrary laying down cut off date on which the eligibility of the candidate is to be looked into and the law is clear on the issue that in the absence of any statutory rule to the contrary the recruiting authority is always competent to lay down the eligibility in its advertisement. 11. As already observed we have reservation to uphold the view of the Government that the proviso to R.266(3) stands deleted by virtue of amendment notification dt.11-5-2011 which was inserted vide notification dt.1-7-2004 but even if such mistaken impression is taken on its face value still the recruiting authority in the instant case has initiated the process of selection pursuant to advertisement dt.24-2-2012 making its intention clear by inserting clause-7 to examine conditions of eligibility of the candidates to be looked into on the date of declaration of result of written examination and we are clear in our mind that the recruiting authority always holds competence to lay down such conditions of eligibility which is neither in contravention nor supplanting the Scheme of Rules,1996. 12. 12. The judgment on which the appellants' counsel placed reliance in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 304/2017 is of no assistance for the reason that under the terms & conditions of the advertisement dt.6-7-2016 it was notified that the eligibility shall be looked into on the last date of submission of application and accordingly the process was initiated and what was observed by the Coordinate Bench is that after the amendment notification dt.11-5-2011 the recruiting authority has initiated the selection process pursuant to advertisement dt.6-7-2016 laying down conditions of eligibility to be looked into on the last date of submission of application, that has to be noticed and to be looked into while holding selection in terms of the advertisement. 13. We have already observed that in absence of any statutory provision/rule to the contrary the conditions of eligibility can always be laid down by the recruiting authority in its advertisement and that is the reason for which the Coordinate Bench observed that the recruiting authority is under obligation to proceed and make selections in terms of the conditions of eligibility indicated in the advertisement but indisputably in the instant case there is a specific clause-7 in the advertisement dt.24-2-2012 laying down conditions of eligibility of a candidate to be looked into on the date of declaration of result of written examination which the recruiting authority is under obligation to adhere and this what the Ld. Single Judge has observed in its order impugned before us. 14. After we have heard counsel for the parties we find no error being committed by the Ld. Single Judge in passing the order impugned which may call for our interference in the instant batch of appeals. 15. Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed. Copy of the order be separately placed in each file.