JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged order, dated 31.08.2012 issued by The Deputy Director (Secondary Education) Bharatpur. Division Bharatpur wherein the services of the petitioner had been terminated on account of not possessing Graduate Degree in three subjects i.e. Zoology, Botany and Chemistry and the appointment order of the petitioner dated 07.10.2011 has also been cancelled. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the (Rajasthan Public Service Commission hereinafter) called RPSC issued an advertisement dated 13.08.2008 inviting application for Teacher Gr.-II in different subjects including subject of science. The advertisement specifically provided that a candidate who possess the educational qualification of graduation or equivalent examination with the concerned subject and one more subject taught in class IX and X as 'optional subjects' can apply. The petitioner since had subjects of Zoology & Chemistry in B.Sc. (Hons.) applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.08.2008. 3. The petitioner on being found meritorious, came to be appointed by order dated 07.10.2011 and he was posted in the Government Secondary School, Patka, Bharatpur. 4. It is mentioned in the petition by the petitioner that during the selection process, a notification was issued on 16.04.2010 with effect from 18.07.2008 where the qualifications were changed in respect of Teachers Gr.-II and it was made compulsory that persons should hold the qualification of graduate or equivalent examination with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as optional subjects. The petitioner has submitted that the corrigendum No. 2/2010-11 was issued by the RPSC on 03.09.2010 where the amended qualification was required from the candidates. 5. The persons feeling aggrieved against the amended qualification, had filed DBCWP No. 3836/2011 Devi Bijani v. State of Rajasthan & other connected writ petitions and Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.08.2011 did not interfere with the amended qualifications and as such permitted the process to be completed as per the amended provisions. 6. The candidate feeling aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench, filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1719/2012 and other connected SLP's which came to be decided by the Apex Court vide order dated 23.05.2013. The order of the Apex Court is produced as hereunder :- 7. 6. The candidate feeling aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench, filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1719/2012 and other connected SLP's which came to be decided by the Apex Court vide order dated 23.05.2013. The order of the Apex Court is produced as hereunder :- 7. The petitioner after his appointment and joining when learnt about the decision passed by the Division Bench in the case of Devi Bijani (supra), filed SBCWP No. 1769/2012 and the Court at the admission stage on 23.11.2012, passed the following order. "BY THE COURT : It is stated that validity of the rule by which requirement of graduation with three subjects, namely, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology was challenged before the Division Bench, however, therein the writ petition treating DB Civil Writ Petition No. 3836/2011 in the case of Devi Bijani v. State & Anr. decided on 28.08.2011 was dismissed. The matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed, however, the petitioner is given liberty to seek revival of the writ petition, if the Special Leave Petition is ultimately allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court." 8. The Court had observed that since the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the petitioner was free to seek revival of the writ petition, if the Special Leave Petition was ultimately allowed by the Apex Court. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after decision of the Apex Court, he was entitled to be appointed and the respondents had committed illegality by terminating his services. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is covered by the direction given by the Apex Court as the petitioner was found eligible on the date of issuing of original advertisement and also stood qualified and being appointed, his case ought to have been accordingly considered by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when he had earlier filed writ petition SBCWP No. 17679/2012, the Court had also directed that the fate of the petitioner would be governed as per the judgment of the Apex Court. 11. Learned counsel submits that the respondents issued a notification changing the rules by issuing notification dated 18.07.2008, accordingly the first advertisement dated 13.08.2008 was issued. 11. Learned counsel submits that the respondents issued a notification changing the rules by issuing notification dated 18.07.2008, accordingly the first advertisement dated 13.08.2008 was issued. The respondents thereafter issued the notification dated 16.04.2010 making amendment with retrospective effect from 18.07.2008 and prescribed three 'optional subjects' in graduation i.e. Zoology, Botany and Chemistry for the post of teacher in (Science) subject. 11A. Learned counsel submits that there was further an amendment dated 26.07.2012 where again the respondents provided the changed qualification and required at least two subjects as optional subjects in graduation out of Physics, Chemistry, Zoology, Botany, Micro-Biology, Bio-technology and Bio-chemistry subjects. Learned counsel submits that by virtue of notification dated 26.07.2012, the petitioner again became eligible and as such his cancellation of appointment was bad in the changed circumstances also. 12. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, GC submits that the authorities have rightly passed the impugned termination order. Learned counsel submits that the first appointment order granted to the petitioner was not according to the amended qualifications and the Appointing Authority committed mistake while offering appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that if the foundation of the order is based on a wrong premise, no relief can be granted to such candidate. 13. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate submits that the High Court while passing the earlier order on 23.11.2012 did not interfere with the present termination order which is assailed before this Court and the Supreme Court has also restricted the relief to only those persons who had filed the writ petition prior to the decision in the case of Devi Bijani v. State of Rajasthan (supra) decided on 25.08.2011. 14. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, GC submits that the petitioner had admittedly filed the petition after 25.08.2011 and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 15. Mr. Sharma, further submits that if the amendment has taken place on 26.07.2012, the same was made applicable with immediate effect and it will not be applicable to the previous selection which had taken place as per the notification dated 16.04.2010. 16. Mr. Sharma, submits that the petitioner at relevant time when appointment was to be given, did not possess three 'optional subjects' of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. 16. Mr. Sharma, submits that the petitioner at relevant time when appointment was to be given, did not possess three 'optional subjects' of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. In his graduation as he lacked the basic educational qualification and as such neither the petitioner was entitled to be appointed initially nor this relief can be granted to him at this juncture. 17. I have heard the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 18. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner was given appointment by the Appointing Authority vide order dated 07.10.2011 and the Appointing Authority considered the candidature of the petitioner on merit, as per the recommendation made by the RPSC. The Court finds that the Appointing Authority considered that the petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification and was found to be selected by the RPSC and as such as per his order in the merit the appointment order was given to the petitioner. 19. The Court further finds that the amendment which has been made on 16.04.2010 making it retrospective with effect from 10.07.2008, the Apex Count in its order has clearly held that the Rules could be amended during the continuation of process of selection and those persons who had appeared in the examination and had been found eligible on the date of issuance of advertisement of the vacancy, such persons stood qualified and they deserved to be appointed. This Court finds that the petitioner's case ought to have been considered by the respondents as per the decision of the Apex Court. It is also necessary to clarify that earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was decided by this Court making it clear that whatever, will be the fate of the SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the same will govern in the case of the petitioner. 20. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned order which was passed by the respondents is based on wrong premise and the appointment of the petitioner could not have been cancelled. The respondents ought to have revisited the impugned order after decision of the Apex Court and the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment as per the direction given by the Apex Court. 21. Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.08.2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents ought to have revisited the impugned order after decision of the Apex Court and the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment as per the direction given by the Apex Court. 21. Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.08.2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.-II in science subject. 22. The order may be complied with within the period of two months from date of receipt of copy of this order. 23. Writ Petition Allowed.