JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner as per his degree/diploma in Computer Application from the recognized University/Institute with all consequential benefits. 2. Further relief has been sought that the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of LDC in the category of SC, male in District Sirohi, pursuant to the advertisement 2013. 3. Advertisement dated 14.02.2013 (Annexure-1), was issued for appointment to the post of LDC. The advertisement inter alia indicated the minimum educational qualification and provided that the applicant must have obtained the qualification on the last date of filing the application. 4. The petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement and relied on a qualification, whereby, he had obtained diploma in Computer Application from National Institute of Computer Education (NICE). However, apparently on account of the said diploma having not been recognized by the respondent-State, after document verification the name of the petitioner did not appear in the list of selected candidates. 5. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner approached the respondents relying on a diploma in Computer Application given by Calorx Teachers' University, Ahmedabad. However, the same was not taken into consideration. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the circulars 30.10.2017 and 26.12.2017 issued by the respondents, wherein, directions were issued for taking into consideration qualification, which was though not relied on by the candidates at the time of filling up the application form but had been obtained by the candidates prior to the cut off date i.e. June, 2013. 7. It is submitted that as the respondents themselves have indicated that the qualification has to be taken into consideration, as the qualification relied on by the petitioner is recognized as per the advertisement, the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for. 8. Further submissions have been made that the only objection indicated in reply to the writ petition is that the document was not produced at the time of document verification and that the respondents never got opportunity to verify the said document and, therefore, the appointment could not be given on the said basis. 9. 8. Further submissions have been made that the only objection indicated in reply to the writ petition is that the document was not produced at the time of document verification and that the respondents never got opportunity to verify the said document and, therefore, the appointment could not be given on the said basis. 9. It is submitted that in view of the circulars issued by the respondents providing another opportunity, the plea raised in this regard has no basis. It was prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to do the needful. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State, vehemently, opposed the submissions. 11. It was inter alia submitted that admittedly the petitioner did not rely on the qualification which is now sought to be projected, at the time of filling up the application form. Further attention was drawn towards the certificate, which was issued on 20.04.2016 and it was submitted that once the document was not in possession of the petitioner at the time of filing of the application/at the time of scrutiny, he is not entitled to rely on the said qualification and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Reliance has been placed on judgment in Radha Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13027/2013, decided on 04.05.2017 and Ramesh Chandra Meena v. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13367/2013, decided on 24.11.2017. 13. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record, the facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner at the time of filing of the application, relied on a qualification which was not recognized by the respondents. The respondents, during the course of the recruitment process, issued various circulars including circular dated 30.10.2017, 25.12.2017 and 11.07.2018. The circular dated 30.10.2017 insofar as relevant, reads-as-under: 14. A perusal of the above indicates that the department, clearly issued guidelines to indicate that RSCIT/other recognized Computer qualification obtained before June, 2013 could be produced and was to be taken into consideration. The circular dated 30.10.2017 insofar as relevant, reads-as-under: 14. A perusal of the above indicates that the department, clearly issued guidelines to indicate that RSCIT/other recognized Computer qualification obtained before June, 2013 could be produced and was to be taken into consideration. Again the circular dated 26.12.2017, which was essentially confined to RSCIT qualification, also emphasized that the qualification must have been obtained before the cut off date i.e. June, 2013 and the circular dated 11.07.2018 provided that even the candidates who had passed their Senior Secondary with the subject Computer Science/Computer Application, were also eligible. 15. In view of the above fact situation, it is apparent that the respondents have permitted candidates who had not relied on a particular qualification at the time of filing application, however, who had obtained the same before the cut off date i.e. June, 2013, could rely on them for indicating their qualification. Apparently, no dispute has been raised by the respondents pertaining to the qualification now sought to be relied on by the respondents regarding its eligibility, however, it is indicated that the respondents could not verify the same. 16. Besides the above, the learned counsel emphasized that as the certificate was issued in the year 2016, the same cannot be relied on. 17. A bare look at the certificate indicates that the petitioner had completed the course of studies approved by the University and the prescribed examinations held in June, 2012. Once the petitioner had appeared in the examination June, 2012 and had cleared the same in first division as per the certificate, merely because the certificate in this regard was issued on 20.04.2016 cannot be a reason to refuse to take the same into consideration inasmuch as the requirement as per the circular is that the qualification must have been obtained before the cut off date and not that the certificate must be obtained before the cut off date. 18. If on account of the gap between the petitioner having cleared the examination and the issuance of certificate, there is any apprehension regarding its genuineness, the respondents are always free to verify its genuineness before acting on the same. 19. 18. If on account of the gap between the petitioner having cleared the examination and the issuance of certificate, there is any apprehension regarding its genuineness, the respondents are always free to verify its genuineness before acting on the same. 19. So far as judgment in the case of Radha Chaudhary (supra), relied on by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, the judgment was delivered on 04.05.2017, which was in consonance with the stipulation made in the advertisement, whereby, the same was required to be produced alongwith the application form, however, in view of the circulars dated 30.10.2017, 26.12.2017 and 11.07.2018 issued by respondents providing opportunity to candidates to rely on qualifications other than what was indicated in the application form, the said judgment in the case Radha Chaudhary (supra), has lost its efficacy. 20. So far as reliance placed on judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra Meena (supra), is concerned, the said judgment, has relied on by quoting the entire judgment in Sangeeta Sen v. State : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5851/2017, decided on 24.08.2017, at the time of decision in the case of Sangeeta Sen (supra) also, none of the circulars dated 30.10.2017, 26.12.2017 and 11.07.2018 were in existance. 21. Besides the same, the prayer made in the petition in the case of Sangeeta Sen (supra), pertained to taking into consideration the qualification obtained by the candidates after the cut off date. It is in that context that the Court observed as under: “In considered view of this Court, the Circulars dated 12.04.2017 and 01.08.2017, permitting the candidates to furnish RS-CIT Certificate till the date of ensuing document verification should be interpreted in the manner that though the certificate would be considered in the ensuing document verification, but such certificate should bear a date of issuance, prior to the preparation of the first select list in June, 2013.” 22. The observations made that the certificate should bear a date of issuance, prior to the preparation of first select list in June, 2013 has to be read in the context of the prayer made and it cannot be said that the judgment has dealt with an issue pertaining to the qualification having been obtained prior to the cut off date and the certificate having been issued subsequently, more particularly on account of the various circulars issued by the respondent after the date of judgment in the case of Sangeeta Sen (supra). 23. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the respondents are directed to take into consideration the qualification relied on by the petitioner, get the same verified in accordance with law and in case the same is found in order/genuine, the petitioner falls in merit in his category and any post is still vacant, he may be accorded appointment in accordance with law.