JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against non-inclusion of their names in the provisional select list pursuant to the Rajasthan Primary & Upper Primary School Teacher Direct Recruitment, 2018 despite having obtained higher percentage of marks than the cut-off as announced by the respondents. 2. The relevant particulars of the petitioners may be noticed thus:- Name of Pet. Cat. Applied for Subject Marks (%) Date of admission in B.Ed. Course % of marks obtained in the Recruit. % of Cut-off Grad. Post Marks Grad. Prithvi Raj Songara SC English (Non-TSP) 39.72 43.88 22.10.2008 62.79 62.05 Bharat Lal Kokhar ST-TSP English (TSP) 43.722 49.444 03.08.2011 47.65 38.94 Sukha Lal Pandor ST-TSP English (TSP) 43.94 46.77 04.07.2014 42.11 38.94 Jaya Purohit Gen English (Non-TSP) 42.83 45.375 30.07.2009 68.38 67.93 Rajendra Kumar OBC/ ExService Man Social Science (Non-TSP) 42.77 47.33 25.09.2010 56.23 55.52 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners having obtained more marks based on the marks obtained by the petitioner in REET and Graduation than the cut-off as is evident from the above table, the respondents were not justified in rejecting their candidature. 4. It is submitted that the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on account of their failure to obtain requisite marks in the Graduation in terms of the Advertisement even after relaxation granted to them as per their category, which is not justified as the petitioners have obtained the requisite marks in their Post Graduation, which is evident from the material available on record and, therefore, the respondents were not justified in rejecting their candidature. 5. Reference has been made to judgment in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3964/2011 : Sushil Sompura and Others. v. State (Education) and Others., decided on 20.05.2011 and Neeraj Kumar Rai and Others. v. State of U.P. and Others., (2017) 14 SCC 608 . 6. It is submitted that the respondents were bound to take into consideration marks obtained by the petitioners in Post Graduation in terms of notification issued by the National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE') from time to time and once the said aspect is taken into consideration, the petitioners being eligible are entitled to the relief as prayed for. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted by the respondents that a plain reading of the Advertisement clearly reflects requirement of 50% marks in Graduation and after grant of relaxation for the reserved category candidature, they are required to have 45% marks in Graduation, which admittedly the petitioners have failed to obtain. 8. Further submissions have been made that the Post Graduation cannot be treated as equivalent to Graduation so as to take the marks obtained in Post Graduation into consideration for the purpose of eligibility as required by the Advertisement/Rules/NCTE's Regulations and, therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be rejected. 9. It was further submitted that the judgment in the case of Sushil Sompura pertains to TET Examination and, therefore, the same has no application to the present recruitment. 10. It was submitted that the case of the petitioners Bharat Lal Kokhar, Sukha Lal Pandor and Rajendra Kumar, are covered by judgment in Puran Mal v. State of Raj. and Others.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12982/2018, decided on 19.09.2018. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. A perusal of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018, inter alia, indicates the following eligibility requirements:- "Graduation with at least 45% marks and Iyear Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard." 13. The candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/MBC/PH/ Widow/Divorcee are entitled for relaxation of 5% marks in the educational qualifications. The candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/MBC/PH/ Widow/Divorcee are entitled for relaxation of 5% marks in the educational qualifications. The notification further clarifying the requirement of NCTE Regulations as indicated in the eligibility requirements as under:- ^^9-3 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj dh [k.MihB }kjk fofHkUu ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-05-2011 ds Øe esa Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx] jktLFkku ds i=kad ,Q 7¼1½bZ-bZ-@Iyku@2011 fnukad 17 twu] 2011 ,oa Li"Vhdj.k fnukad 16-09-2013 ds vuqlkj fuEu vH;FkhZ jktLFkku izkFkfed ,oa mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ] 2018 esa Hkkx ysus gsrq ik= gksaxs& (i) ,sls lHkh vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 27-09-2007 tkjh gksus ls iwoZ f'k{kd izf'k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos'k fy;k gS mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure izfr'kr vad izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk ugha gSA (ii) ,sls lHkh vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 27-09-2007 tkjh gksus ds ckn ijUrq vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-08-2009 ds tkjh gksus ls iwoZ f'k{kd izf'k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos'k ys fy;k Fkk] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure 45 izfr'kr vad izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk gSA (iii) ,sls lHkh vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-08-2009 ds tkjh gksus ls ckn f'k{kd izf'k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos'k ys fy;k Fkk] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure 50 izfr'kr vad izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk gSA^^ 14. A perusal of the above eligibility requirement as well as the Clause 9.3 clarifying the NCTE Regulations would reveal that the minimum percentage of marks as indicated at Graduation level have been bifurcated into 3 categories i.e. those who took admission in B.Ed. prior to 27.09.2007, between 27.09.2007 to 31.08.2009 and post 31.08.2009 and different eligibility requirements for each have been indicated. 15. The said requirements have essentially been indicated based on judgment of this Court in the case of Sushil Sompura , wherein a Division Bench of this Court directed as under:- "The respondents are free to hold the TET examination. The prayer of the petitioners regarding inclusion of qualification of B.Com. in the group of qualification of graduation in the eligibility criteria has already been allowed. The respondents shall not insist on the qualification of having 45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in the bachelor's degree or master's degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, in case incumbents have obtained admission in the requisite courses such as B.Ed., B.El.Ed, Senior Secondary etc. The respondents shall not insist on the qualification of having 45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in the bachelor's degree or master's degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, in case incumbents have obtained admission in the requisite courses such as B.Ed., B.El.Ed, Senior Secondary etc. prior to prescription of the minimum qualifying marks by NCTE vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009. It is made clear that the incumbents, who have obtained the B.Ed. etc. before the minimum qualifications were prescribed vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009, shall be allowed to appear in the TET Examination. The incumbents, who have passed out B.Ed. Course from Jammu & Kashmir, have to be dealt with on similar yard sticks in case the qualification is otherwise recognized. Let NCTE specify categories of teachers under para 4 of Notification dated 23.8.2010. As prayed by NCTE, let amended notification be issued within one month covering aforesaid aspects." 16. A perusal of the above directions would indicate that the Division Bench had clearly directed the respondents not to insist on the qualification of having 45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in the Bachelor's Decree or Master's Degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, if the incumbents have obtained admission in the requisite course prior to prescription of minimum qualifying marks by NCTE vide notification dated 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009. The said aspect was again noticed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Kumar Rai , wherein the specific question as raised in the present case was considered and observations were made as under:- "3. Thus, the question for consideration is whether the candidates who had already passed B.Ed., had the requisite percentage in post graduation and are otherwise covered by notification dated 23rd August, 2010, will stand excluded only on the ground that their marks in graduation were less than the percentage prescribed in the notification dated 29th July, 2011. 4. The case of the appellants is that they had the post graduation and B.Ed. qualifications. They also had the TET qualification. In post-graduation their marks are more than 50%. The NCTE is a statutory body under the NCTE Act to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system. It lays down qualification for recruitment of teachers and also criteria for admission to training in teacher education. qualifications. They also had the TET qualification. In post-graduation their marks are more than 50%. The NCTE is a statutory body under the NCTE Act to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system. It lays down qualification for recruitment of teachers and also criteria for admission to training in teacher education. The NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 prescribe qualification for recruitment of teachers. The said regulations were amended from time to time. Regulations were also framed for admission to teacher education programmes including for admission to B.Ed. The said regulations prescribed requirement of 45% / 50% either in graduation or in post graduation for admission to the B.Ed. which the appellants possessed. Only the impugned notification dated 29th July, 2011 prescribed requirement of 50% marks in graduation which was earlier optional for those who had 50% marks in post graduation. On that basis, the State of Uttar Pradesh declared candidates who were B.Ed. and TET and were otherwise qualified in terms of the qualifications laid down by the NCTE for appointment of teachers as ineligible. Some persons who were earlier appointed but their services were later terminated. The claim of similarly placed candidates was supported by the NCTE and was also upheld by the High Courts of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand which judgments were operative and had become final. 5. To appreciate the submissions reference may briefly be made to relevant notifications. The 2003 amendment to the 2001 regulations provides for requirement of graduation along with B.Ed or its equivalent without any minimum marks in graduation. The 2007 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading to B.Ed. require 45% marks either in Bachelors degree or in Masters degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto. The 2009 Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme through Open and Distance Learning System leading to B.Ed. do not provide for any minimum percentage of marks in Bachelors degree. However, in the NCTE notification dated 23rd August, 2010 the requirement of prescribed percentage of marks in graduation was laid down on which basis the said requirement was laid down in the impugned notification dated 29th July, 2011denying eligibility to the appellants." 17. After observing as aforesaid, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sushil Sompura and judgment of Uttrakhand in Baldev Singh and Ors. After observing as aforesaid, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sushil Sompura and judgment of Uttrakhand in Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttrakhand and Others.: Writ Petition No. 772(SS) of 2011, decided on 20.08.2011 and directed as under:- "9. In view of fair stand of learned Additional Solicitor General and the view of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, we do not find any reason to deny similar relief to the appellants. No doubt, as rightly held by the High Court the NCTE ought to have issued a clarification by way of a supplementary notification but the NCTE may now do so within one month from today. Accordingly, we direct that if the appellants or any other similarly placed persons are entitled to any further relief in terms of judgments of Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts, they will be at liberty to put forward their claim before the concerned authorities who may take a decision thereon in accordance with law within one month. We have not examined any such claim in these proceedings except what has been stated hereinabove." 18. From the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the 2007 Norms & Standards for Teacher Education Programme leading to B.Ed. required 45% marks either in Bachelor's Degree or in Master's Degree and, therefore, during the period 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009, those who took admission in B.Ed based on having 45% marks in Post Graduation, would also fall within the same parameters as the Graduates and the non-mention by the respondents of the candidates having obtained 45% marks at Post Graduation level in Clause 9.3 (ii) of the Advertisement is laconic, contrary to the directions of Division Bench in the case of Sushil Sompura , which has been affirmed in the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai and, therefore, to the said extent, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. 19. 19. Insofar as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that as the judgment in the case of Sushil Sompura pertains to TET examination, the same would have no application to the present recruitment are absolutely baseless, inasmuch as, in the case of Sushil Sompura , this Court determined the implication of notification dated 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009 and the same notifications forms the basis for the eligibility requirement as indicated by the respondents in the advertisement as well as the clarification as indicated in Clause 9.3 of the Advertisement, wherein in the Advertisement itself it has been indicated that the same is based on judgment in the case of Sushil Sompura . 20. Another submission of the respondent-State that Post Graduation cannot be equated to Graduation as in Clause 9.3 (ii) only Graduation and equivalent has been indicated, has been noticed for rejection only, inasmuch as, as already determined hereinbefore the respondents were bound to indicate 'Graduation or Post Graduation' insofar as the period between 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009 is concerned in clause 9.3(ii), in view of the notification of NCTE laying down eligibility requirement for B.Ed. by its notification dated 27.09.2007, which has been specifically noticed in the case of Sushil Sompura and Neeraj Kumar Rai . 21. In view of above discussion, the respondents are required to take into consideration the marks obtained by candidates in Post Graduation as well, who have taken admission in B.Ed. during the period 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009, for the purpose of adjudging their eligibility for the post of teacher Grade-III (Level-2). 22. However, it is made clear the said aspect would have relevance only for the purpose of eligibility and in so far as the award of marks is concerned, marks are only required to be awarded based on the marks obtained by the candidates at the Graduation level as per the application form. 23. If the above determination is applied to the facts of the present case, it would be apparent that the petitioner-Prithvi Raj Songara had obtained admission in B.Ed. 23. If the above determination is applied to the facts of the present case, it would be apparent that the petitioner-Prithvi Raj Songara had obtained admission in B.Ed. on 22.10.2008 and is entitled for relaxation of 5% in the minimum marks (45%) as obtained in Post Graduation i.e. he would be eligible in case he had obtained 40% marks in Post Graduation and as he obtained 43.88% marks, he is eligible and having obtained more marks than the cut-off as is reflected from the table hereinbefore, the petitioner-Prithvi Raj Songara being eligible and within the cut-off is entitled to relief. Similarly, petitioner-Jaya Purohit having obtained the admission in B.Ed. on 30.07.2009 i.e. before the cut-off of 31.08.2009 and having obtained 45.375% marks in Post Graduation, which is higher than the cut-off, is also entitled to relief. 24. So far as the petitioners Bharat Lal Kokhar, Sukha Lal Pandor and Rajendra Kumar are concerned, they have obtained admission in B.Ed. on 03.08.2011, 04.07.2014 and 25.09.2010 respectively, are not entitled to any relief, inasmuch as post 31.08.2009 notification, the only criteria for admission to B.Ed. was minimum percentage of marks in Bachelor's Decree as per NCTE Regulations and, therefore, their marks in Post Graduation cannot be taken into consideration for judging their eligibility in terms of NCTE Regulations. This Court in the case of Puran Mal after thoroughly considering the issues involved in the matter, laid down as under:- "In view of the above discussion, as the petitioners have obtained less than 50% marks in graduation and have taken admission in B.Ed. course after 31.08.2009, as per the NCTE Regulation dated 29.07.2011 and the directions in the case of Sushil Sompura , they are ineligible for the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-II) and, therefore, are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petitions." 25. As such so far as the cases of the above petitioners i.e. Bharat Lal Kokhar, Sukha Lal Pandor and Rajendra Kumar are concerned, the same are covered by judgment in the case of Puran Mal and, therefore, the said petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 26. In view of the above discussion, SBCW No.14141/2018 (Prithvi Raj Songara v. State and Others.) and SBCW No.13877/2018 (Jaya Purohit v. State and Others.), are allowed. 26. In view of the above discussion, SBCW No.14141/2018 (Prithvi Raj Songara v. State and Others.) and SBCW No.13877/2018 (Jaya Purohit v. State and Others.), are allowed. The respondents are directed to include the names of the petitioners in their respective select list as per their merit, allot them Districts as per their merit and after counseling, if they are otherwise found fit, accord them appointment strictly in accordance with their merit. The needful be done by the respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. SBCW No.14145/2018 (Bharat Lal Kokhar v. State and Others.), SBCW No.13977/2018 (Sukha Lal Pandor v. State and Others.) and SBCW No.14039/2018 (Rajendra Kumar v. State and Others.), have no substance, the same are, therefore, dismissed.