JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent - Rajasthan Public Service Commission to consider his candidature for the post of Senior Teacher-Maths. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner applied for the post of Senior Teacher-Maths, pursuant to advertisement dated 07.01.2016. As per the eligibility criteria given in the advertisement, the petitioner, who was in the final year of the concerned course, could apply for the aforesaid post, however, he was to furnish the proof of clearing said examination before the date of written examination. 3. The condition aforesaid is reproduced hereunder: 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk laca/kh izko/kku mDr in dh visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre o"kZ esa lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kk ls iwoZ 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk] vU;Fkk og vik= gksxkA Li"Vhdj.k%& mDr lqfo/kk dk os gh vH;FkhZ miHkksx dj ldsaxs] tks vkosnd vkosnu&i= izkfIr dh vafre fnukad rd in dh okafNr ;ksX;rk dh ijh{kk ds vfUre o"kZ esa izos'k ys pqds gksaxsA 4. The undisputed facts are that the examinations, pursuant to advertisement dated 07.01.2016 were held on 10.02.2018, whereas the petitioner had cleared B.A. Additional (Mathematics) on 22.03.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since, the result of the written examination held by the RPSC was declared on 20.11.2018 and documents verification was held thereafter, the respondents ought not to have rejected petitioner's candidature, because by such time, he had already graduated. 6. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the Division Bench judgment dated 04.04.2016 in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Manju Chhaba [DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 127/2016] and submitted that petitioner's case is also identical and he is entitled for the relief claimed. 7. Selection in question is governed by Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. The terms of the advertisement are in conformity with the Rules and they were clear and explicit. As per the Rules and terms of the advertisement, petitioner was required to furnish a proof that he has cleared qualifying examination before the date of examination. 8. Concededly, petitioner passed the qualifying examination on 22.03.2018, after the date of written examination i.e. 10.02.2018. 9. As per the Rules and terms of the advertisement, petitioner was required to furnish a proof that he has cleared qualifying examination before the date of examination. 8. Concededly, petitioner passed the qualifying examination on 22.03.2018, after the date of written examination i.e. 10.02.2018. 9. This Court does not find any substance in petitioner's argument that since the result of the written examination held by the RPSC was declared on 20.11.2018 and document verification was held thereafter, the petitioner deserves to be held eligible for selection. 10. Argument advanced by Mr. Gaur that as per Rule 11 of the Rules, amended vide notification dated 17.02.1999, the date of verification should be treated to be the date of the interview and accordingly the cut-off date should be reckoned as such date, and not the date of written examination, is untenable on the face of it. 11. Proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules reads as under:- ""Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the Rules or schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but she/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency:- (i) before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview; (ii) before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview; (iii) before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview, as the case may be." 12. A careful reading of the above provision reveals that the Rules require that a candidate, who has appeared or is appearing in the Final Year of the qualifying course can apply for the post, but he/she will be required to submit proof of having acquired the qualification before the date of written examination. A candidate is not supposed to submit such proof before the examination. As a matter of fact, he is supposed to furnish a proof that he had acquired such qualification before the date of written examination. A candidate is not supposed to submit such proof before the examination. As a matter of fact, he is supposed to furnish a proof that he had acquired such qualification before the date of written examination. Hence, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination, if the candidate has not acquired the requisite qualification by the date of written examination, he cannot be held eligible. 13. Division Bench judgment cited by learned counsel is clearly distinguishable on facts, as in that case concerned candidate had furnished proof of clearing the qualifying examination on 22.02.2014 and the examinations continued from 21.02.2014 to 25.02.2014; whereas in the present case, petitioner has acquired the qualification after one month of the written examinations. 14. My aforesaid view is fully fortified by a Coordinate Bench decision dated 15.10.2015 rendered in case of Honey Sunariwal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5214/2015), which reads thus:- "Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alka Ojha v. RPSC & Anr. : AIR 2011 SC 3547 , inter alia, observed as under:- 14. The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262 : ( AIR 2000 SC 2011 : 2000 AIR SCW 1888), this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669 , District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 , M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429 : (1993 AIR SCW 1412), Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana, (1994 AIR SCW 2861) (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (supra) and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: "..... (3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana, (1994 AIR SCW 2861) (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (supra) and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: "..... that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service Rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the Rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications and that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority." The same view was reiterated in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3821 : 2003 AIR SCW 4377) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 . Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court rightly held that a candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for selection." From the above judgment, the stipulation that the cut off date, by reference to which eligibility requirement was required to be satisfied is the date for the purpose in the advertisement calling for application. In view thereof, the submissions made with regard to stipulation in the advertisement appears to be without any substance. In the case of District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. v. M. Pripura Sundari Devi : (1990) 3 SCC 655 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact" From the above, it is apparent that there is no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra) is concerned, the same has no application to the facts of the present case as in the said case the petitioner had acquired the eligibility qualification during two papers of the written examination for recruitment, which was the cut off date, however, in the present case, the petitioner has acquired the qualification after four months. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed." 15. As an upshot of the discussion aforesaid, the writ petition, as well as the stay petition, stands dismissed.