JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against rejection of her candidature for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in the subject Agriculture. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that advertisement dated 13.4.2018 (Annex.2) was issued by the respondents, wherein inter alia the post of Lecturer in subject Agriculture was advertised. The educational qualification was indicated therein for the post in terms of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 ('Rules of 1970'), as B.Ed. and post graduation in relevant subject or any other equivalent qualification. The petitioner based on her qualification as B.Sc., B.Ed. and M.Sc. in Agronomy applied for the post. 3. The respondents after initial rejection and amendment by the respondent - RPSC in the last date of application, issued the final list of the candidates after document verification, wherein, the roll number of the petitioner did not appear though the marks obtained by the petitioner are higher than the cut-off in her category. 4. The reason was disclosed by the RPSC in its reply (Annex.R/1) that the petitioner has not done her B.Sc. in Agriculture and, therefore, she was held as ineligible for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in subject Agriculture. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on account of the fact that she has not done her B.Sc. in Agriculture is not justified, inasmuch as, the qualification indicated in the Rules and the advertisement only requires the candidate to have done his/her B.Ed. and post graduation in Agriculture. Admittedly, the petitioner has done her B.Ed. and holds post graduation in Agriculture and, therefore, rejection of petitioner's candidature by the respondents, is not justified. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent - RPSC made submissions that the issue was referred to the Director, Secondary Education with regard to the requisite qualification, wherein, the Director has opined that the petitioner was ineligible. 7. Submissions have been made that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected based on the opinion received from the Director, Secondary Education and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. 7. Submissions have been made that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected based on the opinion received from the Director, Secondary Education and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The qualification for the post indicated in the Rules of 1970 inter alia reads as under:- "Second Class post graduate (Agriculture) in either Agronomy or Horticulture or Animal Husbandry with degree or diploma in Education recognized by govt." 10. A perusal of the above would reveal that the requirement is post graduation in Agriculture with subjects Agronomy or Horticulture or Animal Husbandry and degree or diploma in Education recognized by the Government. 11. Similar indication has been made in the advertisement, which reads as under:- ^^vfuok;Z 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk% ¼izk/;kid&fp=dyk ds vfrfjDr leLr inksa ds fy;s½ %& ¼1½ ljdkj }kjk ekU; f'k{kk Lukrd ¼ch-,M-½ vkSj lqlaxr fo"k; esa LukrdksRrj fMxzh ;k mlds lerqY; dksbZ vU; vgZrk A 12. When the issue was referred by the RPSC to the Director, Secondary Education, the opinion qua the petitioner's case dated 14.7.2021 (Annex.R/1/1) delivered, reads as under:- 2- ;fn vH;FkhZ d`f"k esa Lukrd ugha gS rks vH;FkhZ }kjk vftZr vf/kLukrd dh ;ksX;rk dk ¼d`f"k ldk; dh fofHkUu 'kk[kk;s½ ikB~;Øe d`f"k vf/kLukrd ds led{k ugha gSA vr% og vik= gSA 13. The said opinion was based on the opinion given by the experts, who noticed in the case of petitioner that she has done her B.Sc. in Chemistry, Botany and Geology and M.Sc. (Agriculture) Agronomy and indicated that as the petitioner is not graduate in Agriculture, the same was not relevant. 14. As noticed hereinbefore, the indications made in the advertisement as well as Rules are very clear, wherein, the requirement indicated is post graduation in Agriculture with either Agronomy or Horticulture or Animal Husbandry along with degree or diploma in Education. 15. It is not in dispute that, insofar as, the said qualifications as indicated in the advertisement and the Rules are concerned, the petitioner is in possession, however, the RPSC for reasons best known to it, sought directions from the Director, Secondary Education, who in turn sought opinion from experts, who have not indicated any basis for coming to the conclusion that how the requirement of having B.Sc. in Agriculture could be read in the qualification, which is not indicated either in the Rules and/or in the advertisement. 16. The indication made that as the graduation is not in Agriculture, the M.Sc. in Agriculture with subject Agronomy is not relevant, cannot be sustained as the said opinion is dehors the Rules and the indication made in the advertisement. 17. Once the indication made in the advertisement and the Rules is specific and petitioner fulfills the said requirements, by seeking to get opinion of the experts who by way of an involved assessment without indicating the reason and ignoring the provisions of the Rule, has indicated an opinion, the same cannot bind the RPSC - the Recruiting Agency and, therefore, the action of the RPSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner by indicating that as the petitioner has not done her B.Sc. in Agriculture, she was ineligible, cannot be sustained. 18. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 31.8.2021 (Annex.R/1) is quashed and set aside. 19. The RPSC is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner, in case, she is otherwise eligible and the respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner, again in case she is otherwise eligible. 20. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date person lower in merit to the petitioner was accorded appointment. However, the monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of appointment.