JUDGMENT 1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayers which reads as under:- "I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent no. 1 may kindly be directed to take offline application form for the aforesaid vacancy without asking for registration no. in Rajasthan para medical Council. II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondent no. 2 may kindly be directed to consider the application form for registration after considering the recognition of the institute (PGI Chandigarh) as same is constituted after Gazette notification and accordingly issue the registration no on priority basis expeditiously looking to the fact of the case. IV. any other appropriate writ, order or direction, beneficial to the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. The facts of the case are that on 10.10.2016 an advertisement was issued for 1025 posts of Assistant Radiographer in Medical and Health Department and the petitioner applied for the same. The eligibility and educational qualifications at the time of submitting application form, by the cut off date, read as follows:- ^^6- ik=rk ,oa ’kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk %& vkosnu i= ÁLrqr djrs le;] vkosnd dh fuEufyf[kr ;ksX;rk,a gksuh pkfg,%& Øe la[;k in dk uke ,oa in dksM ’kS{kf.kd ,oa O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk 1 Lkgk;d jsfM;ksxzkQj ¼in dksM 01½ Senior Secondary in Science with either Biology or mathematics or its equivalent with Radiography course passed from an institute recognized by the Rajasthan State Government/Central Government/Rajasthan Para Medical Council. And Registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council And Working knowledge of Hindi Written in devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthan Culture. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the last date for submitting fee and online application was extended from 24.11.2016 to 24.12.2016. It is further submitted that petitioner passed Senior Secondary Examination with Biology in the year 2012, and as per ’Result-cum-Detailed Marks Certificate’ dated 05.11.2016, she cleared her ’Bachelor of Science in Medical Tech. (Radio diagnosis Imaging) Part-III (final year) exam’ held in August, 2016 from ’Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh’ (in short ’PGI’) and a provisional degree was also issued to her on 29.10.2016. (Radio diagnosis Imaging) Part-III (final year) exam’ held in August, 2016 from ’Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh’ (in short ’PGI’) and a provisional degree was also issued to her on 29.10.2016. It is further submitted that, as registration with Rajasthan Para Medical Council (in short ’RPMC’) was one of the pre requisite qualification/eligibility as specified in the advertisement, the petitioner applied for her registration on 05.12.2016, which was rejected vide order dated 16.12.2016 with the reasons that the petitioner had not enclosed document regarding recognition of the institution from where she had acquired the provisional degree, even though PGI, Chandigarh is an Institute established by Central Government under the Act passed by Parliament of India (i.e. Post Graduate Institute and Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966.) As a result of such rejection, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the selection process and it is in this background that the present writ petition was filed. 4. It is important to note at this juncture, as pointed out by the respondent, that during the pendency of writ petition, on 04.01.2017 an interim order was passed as a result of which the application form of the petitioner was accepted and she was allowed to participate in the selection process in terms of advertisement No.10/2016 dated 10.10.2016. It is also submitted by the respondents that on 30.05.2019, the Rajasthan Para Medical Council awarded the petitioner Certificate of Registration in terms of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Act, 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that, in terms of Hon’ble court’s order, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection process and petitioner’s documents were also verified on 26.02.2017, but in terms of the advertisement, candidates were required to possess requisite qualification including eligibility and Registration with the RPMC, on or before the filing of the online application form (i.e. 24.12.2016) and at that time the petitioner was not possessing the requisite Registration Certificate from RPMC. It is an admitted fact that the registration was only issued to the petitioner, by the RPMC in 2019 and therefore, for non filing of the requisite documents by the cut off date, as required under the advertisement and under the rules, the petitioner was found not eligible. It is an admitted fact that the registration was only issued to the petitioner, by the RPMC in 2019 and therefore, for non filing of the requisite documents by the cut off date, as required under the advertisement and under the rules, the petitioner was found not eligible. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that new selection process, vide advertisement in the year 2020, has taken place and it is admitted that the petitioner has also applied in the new advertisement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments of this court in S.B. Civil Writs No.11705/2015 titled as Jitendra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. B.D.M.L Shikshan Sansthan and in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.286/2021 wherein he has submitted that the advertisement envisaged a co-related process of recruitment and registration and for wrongful denial of registration, on part of the respondent, the petitioner should not suffer and the act of denying registration should not be considered as an impediment, at any stage, even if the advertisement was issued way back in 2016. He has further placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8717/2015 titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors. wherein he submits that even if the advertisement was issued way back in 2016, the court at this stage can grant appropriate relief as prayed for, especially in the light of interim order dated 04.01.2017 passed by this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar situations, co-ordinate Bench & Division Bench of this Court have granted benefits to similarly situated persons. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on judgments reported in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India Vs. Jagdish Balram Bahira reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670 , Ranjeet Singh Kardam Vs. Sanjeev Kumar reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 448 and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. South East Central Railway reported in (2019) 12 SCC 798 on the issue that if the posts are lying vacant at a later stage, or even if posts are abolished, writ court can issue directions for appointment, if arbitrariness is made out. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9429/2021 titled as Rai Vs. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9429/2021 titled as Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. & D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.252/2019 titled as State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Zaiba & Ors., wherein it is submitted that, if the registration required in the eligibility and educational qualification is not submitted on or before the cut off date, then the candidate is found to be ineligible. He has submitted that after considering the same advertisement in the very same circumstance, this Hon’ble Court in Zaiba & Ors. (supra) dismissed the claim of persons, who were on the same footing as that of petitioner. 8. This court has heard the arguments advanced by respective counsels, scanned the records of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited at bar. 9. In the case in hand, it is an admitted position that advertisement was issued on 10.10.2016 for the post of Radiographer, wherein qualifications were duly prescribed in paragraph 6 (supra), wherein it was mandatory on the part of the applicants/petitioners to hold registration with RPMC on the date of application or till the cut off date. The cut off date in the given case was extended till 24.12.2016. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that till 24.12.2016, she was not registered with RPMC and for want of document with regard to recognition of the institute i.e. Post Graduate Institute (’PGI’), Chandigarh, vide order dated 16.12.2016 (annexure-6), registration application of the petitioner was not considered and it was canceled in terms of Rajasthan Para Medical Council Regulation, 2014. It has also come on record that registration with RPMC was issued by respondent No.2 in the year 2019. It was also admitted by the respective counsels, during the course of argument, that the petitioner has filed subsequent application in the advertisement in the year 2020 for the same post. In this background, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Sandeep Taneja has submitted that the Division Bench of this court has considered the very same issue in Zaiba & Ors. (supra) and held that: "21. In this background, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Sandeep Taneja has submitted that the Division Bench of this court has considered the very same issue in Zaiba & Ors. (supra) and held that: "21. We are firmly of the opinion that in the instant case, since, the process of selection adopted under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 is different and not covered by the process of selection contemplated under proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965, in absence of any other provision in the Rules prescribing a cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate, the appointed date for the purpose of eligibility criteria shall be the date as prescribed in the advertisement calling for applications and thus, the candidates who had already acquired the requisite academic qualification/professional qualification and registration with the RPMC alone were entitled to apply for the recruitment to the post. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in extending the reference date for acquiring the eligibility qualification to the date of counseling/verification of documents by reading something in proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965, which is not there." 10. On perusal of the dictum of the Hon’ble court’s order this court finds that in the same advertisement, dated 10.10.2016, the candidates/applicants were found to be ineligible because they did not possess the registration with Rajasthan Para Medical Council (’RPMC’) before the cutoff date. The criteria of cut off date was maintained by the Hon’ble court. Applying the said ratio in the given case, it is an admitted position that registration was secured by the petitioner in the year 2019 and before the cut off date, i.e. 24.12.2016, the eligibility condition was not fulfilled. It is submitted by the petitioner that she made a prayer for expeditious registration in the present petition. The said prayer, during the pendency of this petition, was already honored in the year 2019 but by the said date, the cut off date was over. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Jitendra Sharma & Ors. (supra) and the judgment of Anil Vishnoi & Ors. (supra) are qua the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 and 12.06.2020 respectively and not pertaining to the advertisement dated 10.10.2016. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Jitendra Sharma & Ors. (supra) and the judgment of Anil Vishnoi & Ors. (supra) are qua the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 and 12.06.2020 respectively and not pertaining to the advertisement dated 10.10.2016. Hence, the said judgments being contrary on facts and under different advertisement and different issues are not applicable. At this point of time, it is noteworthy to mention that in Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9429/2021 this court, while dealing with similar situation, has held that when the stipulation in advertisements are very specific, wherein, the requirement of registration with Rajasthan Nursing Council was compulsory, before the cutoff date, then such stipulations have to be adhered to strictly by every applicant/candidate. The Hon’ble Court considered the judgments of Anil Vishnoi (supra) and made a distinction thereof and held that, the candidates who did not fulfill the specific eligibility as mentioned in the advertisement, were not eligible. 11. In the present case also, admittedly, the petitioner was not in a position to fulfill the requisite eligibility on or before the cut off date. Therefore, the rejection of petitioners’ candidature was in sync with stipulation made in the advertisement and the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Zaiba & Ors. (supra) pertaining to eligibility under Rajasthan Medical & Health Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1965 (’Rules of 1965) and the same does not call for any interference. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner on account of delay and on account of vacancies being available are of no use as the condition No.6 of the advertisement along with provisions of Rules of 1965 were not fulfilled. 12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition does not deserve to be allowed and is, therefore, dismissed. Interim orders passed by this court are also disposed of in above terms, along with pending applications.