JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged rejection of his candidature by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission"). 2. The facts apropos are that the respondent-Commission issued a recruitment notification dated 29.03.2018 and invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of School Lecturer in various subjects. 3. The educational qualification as provided in the advertisement provided for second class post graduate degree in concerned subject having minimum 48% marks with Shiksha Shastri/B.Ed. 4. Following condition in relation to educational qualification was also given:- 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk laca/kh izko/kku mDr inksa dh visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre o”kZ eas lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk ls iwoZ 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk] vU;Fkk og vik= gksxkA 5. Further process in pursuance of the advertisement aforesaid remained in abeyance and on 06.01.2020, a corrigendum notice bearing No. 20/2019-20 came to be issued by the Commission whereby applications were again invited with the condition that candidates who have already filled application form need not furnish fresh application forms. 6. The opening part of the corrigendum dated 06.01.2020 aforesaid reads thus:- ^^vk;ksx ds la-fo-la- 10@ijh{kk@izk/;kid@laLd`r f'k{kk@bih&1@2017&18 fnukad 29-03-2018 }kjk laLd`r f'k{kk foHkkx ds fy, izk/;kid ¼fo|ky;½ ds fofHkUu 06 fo"k;ksa esa 134 in foKkfir fd;s x;s FksA rRi'pkr~ mDr inksa ds laca/k esa 'kqf) i= la[;k 02@2018&19 fnukad 06-04-2018] 04@2018&19 fnukad 04-05-2018] 05@2018&19 fnukad 15-05-2018 ,oa 'kqf) i= la[;k 07@2018&19 fnukad 22-05-2018 dks tkjh fd;s x;s FksA jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 13-02-2019 }kjk vfr fiNM+k oxZ dks 5 izfr'kr vkj{k.k] vf/klwpuk fnukad 19-02-2019 }kjk vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ dks 10 izfr'kr vkj{k.k o vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-01-2019 }kjk fo'ks"k ;ksX;tu dks 4 izfr'kr vkj{k.k fn;s tkus ds Øe esa dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds i= fnukad 23-06-2019 }kjk iznRr funsZ'kksa ,oa foHkkx }kjk inksa dh la[;k esa o`f) fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i izk/;kid ¼fo|ky;½ ds 264 inksa gsrq vkWuykbZu vkosnu iqu% vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gS rFkk bl laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS^^ 7. Though petitioner had not earlier submitted his application form but pursuant to corrigendum aforesaid, submitted application form on 23.01.2020 for the post of School Lecturer - Subject (Sanskrit). 8. Petitioner completed his M.A. on 24.12.2020 and marksheet in this regard came to be issued to him. 9. Though petitioner had not earlier submitted his application form but pursuant to corrigendum aforesaid, submitted application form on 23.01.2020 for the post of School Lecturer - Subject (Sanskrit). 8. Petitioner completed his M.A. on 24.12.2020 and marksheet in this regard came to be issued to him. 9. Petitioner appeared in the competitive examination and was called for document verification. Whereafter, the Commission vide communication dated 22.01.2021, rejected his candidature stating that on the date of written examination, i.e., on 04.08.2020, the petitioner had not completed his post graduation - M.A. in Grammar. 10. Mr. Sangwa, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have illegally rejected petitioner's candidature on the ground that he has not completed his M.A. by the date of written examination. 11. He submitted that as per the marksheet (Annex. 2), petitioner has completed his first year of M.A. in July, 2019, and then immediately took admission in second year of M.A. and thus, was, eligible to apply for the post pursuant to corrigendum dated 06.01.2020. 12. It was also argued that the University in which the petitioner was pursuing his course was about to conduct examinations for final year from 26.03.2020; however, on account of imposition of lockdown and spread of COVID-19, examination could not be held and the same were ultimately held on 08.10.2020. 13. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not petitioner's fault that the respondent-University did not hold the examination in time. According to him, when the petitioner appeared before the Commission for document verification, he had completed his post-graduation and therefore, his candidature ought to have been considered. Learned counsel submitted that condition in the advertisement that candidate must acquire educational qualification before date of written examination must be read down or harmonized considering the unprecedented situation which arose on account of COVID-19. 14. Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Commission opposed the petitioner's prayer, inter alia, highlighting that condition No. 8 of the corrigendum No. 20/2019-20 dated 06.01.2020 provides that educational qualification and other conditions would remain the same. Condition No. 8 of the corrigendum runs as infra:- ^^8- mDr inksa dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk o vU; 'krsZ iwoZ esa tkjh foKkiu o 'kqf) i=ksa ds vuqlkj ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA^^ 15. Condition No. 8 of the corrigendum runs as infra:- ^^8- mDr inksa dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk o vU; 'krsZ iwoZ esa tkjh foKkiu o 'kqf) i=ksa ds vuqlkj ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA^^ 15. Learned counsel thus argued that as per the terms of the basic advertisement dated 29.03.2018 and as per the rules of 2017, only those candidates were eligible for the post, who were in final year of the qualifying course, and that too, subject to furnishing proof of having cleared the final year examination by the date of written examination. 16. Essence of his argument has been that eligibility condition for candidates appearing in final year of educational qualification has two pre-requisites - firstly the candidate must have cleared previous year examination of the concerned course and should have got admission in the final year of course at the time of submitting application form; and secondly, he should furnish the proof of completing the course by the time written examinations are held. 17. He argued that true it is, that the University conducted written examinations on 08.10.2020 and that the examinations were postponed in wake of COVID-19 but the same does not matter at all as the petitioner has failed to clear first hurdle in his way. The petitioner has not cleared previous year of M.A. by the last date of submitting application form i.e. 09.05.2018. 18. Heard. 19. In considered opinion of this Court, the corrigendum dated 06.01.2020 is required to be read in its entirety while having due regard to contextual facts. 20. A perusal of the reproduced part of the corrigendum clearly shows that RPSC issued the corrigendum and invited fresh applications in wake of increased reservation to the Most Backward Classes (5%) and Economically Weaker Sections (10%) for which, the State Government had even increased the posts. 21. Applications were invited afresh and the candidates who had already submitted applications were permitted to edit their applications. 22. So far as other terms and conditions including the educational qualification are concerned, the same have remained unaltered, as is evident from the condition No. 8 of the corrigendum. 23. The corrigendum dated 06.01.2020 seems to have been issued to facilitate the candidates to apply against newly reserved and increased posts. All concerned, including persons falling in MBC category and EWS category were permitted to apply. 24. 23. The corrigendum dated 06.01.2020 seems to have been issued to facilitate the candidates to apply against newly reserved and increased posts. All concerned, including persons falling in MBC category and EWS category were permitted to apply. 24. However such indulgence cannot be meant to include even those candidates, who were not eligible at the time of issuance of first advertisement i.e., on 29.03.2018. 25. In this view of the matter, the petitioner who had not cleared previous year of post graduation upto the cut-off date of advertisement dated 29.03.2018, was not eligible to apply for the post at the time of issuance of first advertisement. Hence, he cannot take advantage of corrigendum dated 06.01.2020, as condition No. 8 thereof poses a stumbling block in his way. 26. The petitioner has failed to clear first bar of eligibility and thus, not eligible and entitled to be considered for the post he has applied for. 27. Hence, other contention that the examination were postponed in the wake of COVID-19 and the cut-off date of clearing the examination should be relaxed, need not be gone into. 28. The issue of eligibility of a candidate on account of postponement of examination due to COVID-19 is kept open. 29. The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 30. Stay petition is also dismissed.