ORDER : 1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) on 2.8.2013 issued an advertisement calling applications for appointment to the post of School Lecturer in the subject of Rajasthani. The eligibility prescribed was a Post Graduate in the subject including as obtained before the commencement of the written examination for the selection. This was in consonance with Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereafter ‘Rules of 1970’). 2. The petitioner a member of the Scheduled Tribe, at the relevant time in the final year of Masters in Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture, having applied pursuant to the advertisement in issue was admitted to the written examination for selection as School Lecturer in Rajasthani. That she was so eligible to apply both under the advertisement dated 2.8.2013 and also in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970 is not in dispute. The examination for selection to the post of School Lecturer (Rajasthani) entailed writing two papers i.e. one in General Knowledge held on 12.7.2014 and the other in the subject of Rajasthani held on 17.7.2014. The petitioner was apparently successful, being at merit no.22, was entitled to be appointed against the vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category to the post of School Lecturer. But on document verification, the respondents held that she did not fulfill the requisite eligibility on the date as required under the advertisement dated 2.8.2013 and/ or Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970. That view of the respondents has resulted in this petition. 3. Appearing for the petitioner Mr.Shobhit Tiwari, submits that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and mechanically in holding that the petitioner lacked the requisite educational qualification of M.A. Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture on the record date as per the advertisement and Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970. He submitted that as admittedly the second of the two papers at the written examination for selection as School Lecturer (Rajasthani) was held on 17.7.2014, when the petitioner’s pass result of M.A. (Final) Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture was also declared as evident from the mark-sheet issued by the University of Rajasthan on 18.8.2014, the petitioner had the requisite educational qualification on the record date— notwithstanding the fact that formal proof thereof came later. And hence in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Shobha Mutha & Others D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.674/2016 and other connected matters, decided on 5.1.2017, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the reserved post of School Lecturer (Rajasthani) as per her merit. 4. Mr.Ganesh Meena, AAG for the State and Mr.M.F. Baig for RPSC not in a position to contest the judgment of the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Shobha Mutha & Others (supra) submitted that yet even with reference thereto, proof of the petitioner’s eligibility of having passed M.A. Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture came with the University’s marksheet dated 18.8.2014. That was way beyond 17.7.2014 when the last of the two written examinationS for appointment to the post of School Lecturer (Rajasthani) was held. That situation did not satisfy, Mr.Ganesh Meena and Mr.M.F. Baig submitted the statutory requirement of the clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970 of the candidate i.e. the petitioner submitting “proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency” at the time when the second and final paper for selection to the post of School Lecturer (Rajasthani) was held on 17.7.2014. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing RPSC’s Special Appeal against Shobha Mutha and Others (supra) has interpreted clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970 and held as under :- “The relaxation of date for acquisition of eligibility had a salutary purpose to widen the net by bringing more and more persons within the zone of consideration and obtain the best talent possible. We are in concurrence with this submission on behalf of the Respondents. Otherwise, there was no need for the Appellant to widen the zone of consideration by restricting it only to those who had acquired the eligibility qualifications before the last date for submission of applications. The Rule visualizes different situations where the selection process consists of a preliminary examination, main examination followed by interview, where the selection was based on a written examination and interview and where the selection was based only on written examination or only on interview. The Rule visualizes different situations where the selection process consists of a preliminary examination, main examination followed by interview, where the selection was based on a written examination and interview and where the selection was based only on written examination or only on interview. The relaxation is provided for to the maximum extent possible depending on the nature of the selection process. 7. It has rightly been contended that clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 11 uses the words “appearing in the written examination where selection is through written examination.” No word of a statute can be read in a manner to render any part of it as futile. Selection can be made only after the written examination is over. It naturally means only after both the papers are completed. To accept the submission that the barrier for eligibility will drop on 12.7.2014 the day of the first paper would render the word “selection” meaningless. If the date for second paper got extended to 27.9.2014, that date has to be considered as relevant for all purposes including eligibility under the advertisement and it cannot be accepted as a relevant date for some purposes and not for other purposes. 8. The legal position with regard to the interpretation of clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970 which thus presents itself is that the requisite educational qualification supplying the eligibility for appointment to a post under the Rules of 1970 has to be obtained before the completion of the written examinations for post in issue. When it is so done it is to be considered adequate. In the instant case admittedly the second and the final paper at the written examination for selection to the post of School Lecturer in the subject of Rajasthani was held on 17.7.2014 and on that date itself the petitioner had the qualification of Masters in Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture as evident from the mark-sheet issued to her by the University of Rajasthan showing her to having passed the Post Graduate— M.A. (Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture). The mere fact that the mark-sheet pursuant to the result dated 17.7.2014 was issued on 18.8.2014 can be of no event as that was a matter of procedure not of substance relating to eligibility. The mere fact that the mark-sheet pursuant to the result dated 17.7.2014 was issued on 18.8.2014 can be of no event as that was a matter of procedure not of substance relating to eligibility. The factum of the petitioner on 17.7.2014 having the qualification requisite i.e. of Masters in Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture cannot be denied at the least from the mark-sheet on record. 9. The proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970 deals with two different aspects relating to fulfilling of the requisite educational qualification. One, the mandated educational qualification with reference to the date of the written examination —which requirement has been construed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of RPSC vs. Shobha Mutha (supra) as educational qualification on or before the date of completion of the written examination for selection to post in issue by RPSC. The other aspect of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970 deals with submission of proof of such qualification. I am of the considered view that while the requirement of educational qualification on or before the completion of the written examination by the RPSC is substantive, the other requirement in the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970 of proof of qualification with reference to the date of the written examination is merely procedural. Where a candidate seeking appointment to a post under the Rules of 1970 can establish beyond a shadow of doubt, without question that he had the requisite educational qualification on the date of the last of the written examination for selection to a post under the Rules of 1970, to deny appointment to a duly selected candidates merely for reason of the marksheet in that regard being later issued by the examining body, would be wholly unjust. A three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in (2005) 9 SCC 779 – Dolly Chhanda Versus Chairman, JEE & Ors. held that indeed the general rule is that while applying for any post, the requisite eligibility should be supplied as on the last date fixed in the brochure inviting the application and unless there is an express provision to the contrary no relaxation in this regard is permissible. held that indeed the general rule is that while applying for any post, the requisite eligibility should be supplied as on the last date fixed in the brochure inviting the application and unless there is an express provision to the contrary no relaxation in this regard is permissible. But it was also categorically held by the Apex Court that where the benefit of a weightage or reservation is sought and necessary certificates pre-existing the last date of the application form have been produced even subsequently, as the matter merely relates to the submission of proof and not to substantive eligibility, no rigid principle of exclusion on this account of late submission can be applied. The foundational principle for so holding by the Apex Court was on count of the facts that submission of proof with regard to the right to any weightage or reservation pertains only to the domain of procedure. The Apex Court reached its aforesaid conclusion on the state of law referred culled from its previous judgment in the case of Charles K.Skaria Versus Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC page 752 where in para 20, the Court held, on the facts before it, that proof of having obtained a diploma for additional 10 marks was distinct from the factum of having got the requisite diploma before the cut off date. The primary question, in such a situation, the Apex Court held was “Has the candidate in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application” and even though it would have been prudent to produce evidence of the requisite Diploma alongwith the application (as was in the said case specifically required by the prospectus) “that was secondary”. The Apex Court further held in Charles K. Skaria (supra) that academic excellence through a diploma for which extra mark was to be granted could not be denuded or overlooked only because the proof of having acquired it was produced later, albeit before the date of actual selection. It was held that “the emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential in the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the hand maid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence.” (underlying mine) 10. I am of the considered view that where there is clinching proof, one way or the other to the Court’s satisfaction that the requisite educational qualification did obtain on a record date i.e. on or before the date of completion of the written examination but the formal marksheet in that regard—a ministerial act—was later issued, it would make no difference to the substantive eligibility of a candidate. In the instant case as per the petitioner’s mark-sheet of M.A. (Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture) even while the result of her having passed M.A. (Rajasthani Language Literature & Culture) was declared on 17.7.2014, the marksheet following it came to be issued only on 18.8.2014. The issue of a mark-sheet being issued after a lag from the declaration of result cannot be held to the petitioner’s prejudice and entail her non-appointment to the post in issue despite her merit. Vide its interim order dated 2.9.2015, this Court had directed that selection to the post of School Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.8.2013 would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 11. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to allow this petition and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner as having the requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post of School Lecturer (Rajasthani) pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.8.2013. 11. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to allow this petition and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner as having the requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post of School Lecturer (Rajasthani) pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.8.2013. And she be so considered for appointment in terms of her merit on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 12. The petition stands allowed accordingly. 13. Consequences except actual monetary benefit to also follow.