JUDGMENT : 1. In all these writ petitions, petitioners have raised a similar grievance in respect of seeking permission to apply/participate in the recruitment for posts of Ayurvedic Chikitsak, Unani Chikitsak & Homeopathy Chikitsak, pursuant to different advertisements bearing No. 02/2023, 03/2023 & 04/2023 respectively, notified by the respondent-AYUSH Department of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Since grievance of petitioners are identical in nature, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for both parties, all writ petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Judgment. 2. Respondent-AYUSH Department issued three separate advertisements, notifying vacancies for posts of Ayurvedic Chikitsak, Unani Chikitsak & Homeopathy Chikitsak under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (as amended) (hereinafter for short “the Rules of 1973”). According to advertisements, requisite eligibility and qualification to apply/participate for posts in question, is the Bachelor Degree in the respective discipline as much as registration with the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Board (hereinafter for short “the Board”) and it has been specifically stipulated that such eligibility should be acquired by aspirants till the last date appointed under the advertisements to submit online application form. In respect of internship, it has been indicated that the internship of aspirants should have been completed till the last date appointed under the advertisements to fill online application form. For ready reference, relevant portion of one of the advertisements, which is substantially similar in all three advertisements, is being reproduced hereunder:- 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk,a %& 1. A Bachelor degree in Ayurved from a University established by law in India or equivalent and recognized under Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 uksV %& vkosnd dk jktLFkku bf.;u esfMflu cksMZ esa jftLVsªs'ku gksuk vfuok;Z gS rFkk foLr`r vkosnu i=@nLrkost lR;kiu ds le; iath;u izek.k i= izLRkqr djuk vko';d Gsa 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk lEca/kh izko/kku mDr in dh visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vkosnu djus dh vafre fnuakd rd vftZr ;ksX;rk/kkjh vH;FkhZ vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk MkW loZiYyh jk/kkd`".ku jktLFkku vk;qosZn fo'ofo|ky;] tks/kiqj esa nLrkost lR;kiu ds le; vkosnu djus dh vfare fnukad 10-07-2023 rd 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk] vU;Fkk og vik= gksxkA vH;FkhZ dks vkosnu djus dh vafre fnuakd rd bUVuZf'ki Vªsfuax Hkh iw.kZ dj ysuh vko';d Gsa 3. All petitioners are stated to be completed the academic degree course in their respective discipline, however, admittedly have not completed the internship. All petitioners are stated to be completed the academic degree course in their respective discipline, however, admittedly have not completed the internship. The case of petitioners is that their internship is likely to be completed, in case of few petitioners, period lacks few days and in case of other petitioners, period lacks few months. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the internship period started after completion of the academic course of Bachelor degree by the University, which was commenced belatedly, due to pandemic Covid-19 situations and since the delay occurred in conducting the examinations of the degree course, consequentially the internship also belated, for which petitioners are not at fault. Hence, it has been prayed that the cut off date, determined by respondents in advertisements to complete the internship as much as to ensure registration by candidates before the Board up to the last date for submission of application form, be relaxed and cut off date be extended, at least up to the stage of documents verification, in respect of the present recruitment. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners have also referred Rule 37 of the Rules of 1973, to contend that the power to relax the eligibility criteria in any peculiar situation rest and vest with the State Government. Therefore, in such circumstances, the State Government should exercise its power to relax the Rules in respect of eligibility to complete the internship, as also in respect of registration before the Board, and the petitioners who are under internship be allowed to apply/participate in the recruitment pursuant to afore-referred advertisements. 5. On behalf of respondent-State, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. C.L. Saini and learned Deputy Government Counsel, Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, have argued that the internship is an intrinsic and essential part for completion of the bachelor degree in the advertisements for Ayurvedic Chikitsak, Unani Chikitsak & Homeopathy Chikitsak, therefore, the candidate who has not completed his internship, cannot be treated as to acquire the degree of the respective discipline. Registration before the Board shall be ensured by the candidates only after acquiring the degree. Therefore, it has been submitted that none of petitioners fulfills the required eligibility to apply/participate for the posts in question for want of degree as well as registration before the Board. Registration before the Board shall be ensured by the candidates only after acquiring the degree. Therefore, it has been submitted that none of petitioners fulfills the required eligibility to apply/participate for the posts in question for want of degree as well as registration before the Board. And the eligibility criteria as set forth by respondents in the advertisements is in the similar lines as envisaged under the statutory Rules of 1973, therefore, petitioners have rightly been denied to apply for the posts in question in the present recruitment. 6. On behalf of respondent-University, learned counsel, Dr. Y.C. Sharma, urged that legal proposition, in respect of determining cut off date for eligibility criteria of the candidate, to participate in the direct recruitment is well established and respondent-State is well within its power and jurisdiction to determine the cut off date as last date of submission of online application forms and to which petitioners have no right to dispute. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the relevant record placed before this Court. 8. At the outset, this is not in dispute that petitioners have not completed the degree course in their respective discipline of Ayurved, Unani & Homeopathy, since admittedly the internship of petitioners is still incomplete. As per Rule 10 of the Rules 1973, as much as according to the notification dated 28.02.2022, issued by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, the internship is an intrinsic and mandatory part to acquire the degree of bachelor course in respect of Ayurvedic Chikitsak, Unani Chikitsak & Homeopathy Chikitsak. In this view, the eligibility criteria as envisaged by the respondent-State in the advertisements, is within parameters as prescribed under the statutory Rules of 1973, and petitioners, indisputably do not fulfill the educational requisite qualification till the last date of submission of application form. 9. The petitioners have sought to take benefits of pandemic Covid-19 situations, for non-completion of internship, but it is not case of any petitioner that the period of internship has been extended due to Covid situation, which otherwise had come under context by or before March, 2022 when the Apex Court stopped to extend benefit of limitation. Thus, such plea of the petitioners do not seems to be bonafide and genuine, for seeking relaxation in requisite educational qualification to apply for the posts in question. 10. Thus, such plea of the petitioners do not seems to be bonafide and genuine, for seeking relaxation in requisite educational qualification to apply for the posts in question. 10. As far as, the Rule 37 of the Rules 1973 is concerned, on which learned counsel for petitioners have placed reliance, a perusal of the such Rule reveals that Government possess power to relax the Rules, in respect of age and experience but not in respect of non completion of degree of bachelor course. Therefore, resort sought to be taken by the learned counsel for petitioners to Rule 37 of the statutory Rules of 1937, is misplaced as far as seeking relaxation in respect of completion of the eligibility criteria of internship is concerned. 11. Learned counsel for respondents has referred a judgment of a Division Bench in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Zaiba; DB Special Appeal Writ No.252/2019 decided on 24.04.2020, wherein the Divisional Bench, after referring the previous judgments of the Apex Court, in Para No.24, has held as under:- “24. Indubitably, the writ petitioners were not holding the requisite qualification as on the ddate of submission of the application forms online inasmuch as, at the relevant time, they were pursuing their internship and had not acquired the registration with RPMC after completion of the professional course. Merely because, they were permitted to fill up the application form, notwithstanding that they were not holdin the requisite qualification as on the date of the submission of application form online, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, no right is created in their favour. The requirement of the eligibility qualification as on the date of the submission of the application form as specified in the advertisement, cannot be relaxed inasmuch as there is no provision in the Rules of 1965 permit such relaxation. Moreover, many more persons who were not having on the date the qualification as on the date fixed for submission of the application form but were in position to obtain the requisite qualification subsequent thereto, might not have even applied for appointment to the post. Moreover, many more persons who were not having on the date the qualification as on the date fixed for submission of the application form but were in position to obtain the requisite qualification subsequent thereto, might not have even applied for appointment to the post. That apart, if the writ petitioners who are not otherwise eligible to apply for the post, are permitted to participate in the selection process and stand in merit, other persons who were having the requisite qualification as on the date of submission of the application form, may be deprived of the appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the cut-off date fixed for the eligibility qualification while initiating the recruitment process needs to the adhered to strictly so as to maintain transparency and fairness in the recruitment process undertaken for public employment.” 12. Learned AAG has also referred a celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ (2000) 5 SCC 262 ], wherein the Apex Court dealt with the issue in respect of determining the cut off date for eligibility of the candidate to apply/participate in the direct recruitment for public employment. While dealing with the issue extensively and after referring to catena of previous judgments, the Apex Court in Para No.14 has opined as under:- “14. In view of several decisions of this Court relied on by the High Court and referred to hereinabove, it was expected of the State Government notifying the vacancies to have clearly laid down and stated the cut-off date by reference to which the applicants were required to satisfy their eligibility This was not done. It was pointed out on behalf of the several d appellant-petitioners before this Court that the practice prevalent in Punjab has been to determine the eligibility by reference to the date of interview and there are innumerable cases wherein such candidates have been seeking employment as were not eligible on the date of making the applications or the last date appointed for receipt of the applications but were in the process of acquiring eligibility qualifications and did acquire the same by the time they were called for and appeared at the interview. Several such persons have been appointed but no one has challenged their appointments and they have continued to be in public employment. Several such persons have been appointed but no one has challenged their appointments and they have continued to be in public employment. Such a loose practice, though prevalent, cannot be allowed to be continued and must be treated to have been put to an end. The reason is apparent. The applications made by such candidates as were not qualified but were in the process of acquiring! eligibility qualifications would be difficult to be scrutinised and subjected to the process of approval or elimination and would only result in creating confusion and uncertainty. Many would be such applicants who would be called to face interview but shall have to be returned blank if they failed to acquire requisite eligibility qualifications by the time of interview. In our opinion the authorities of the State should be tied down to the principles 9 governing the cut-off date for testing the eligibility qualifications on the principles deducible from the decided cases of this Court and stated hereinabove which have now to be treated as the settled service jurisprudence.” The judgment of Bhupinderpal Singh (Supra) has further been followed in M.A. Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka [(2003) 7 SCC 517], Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India [ (2007) 4 SCC 54 ] & Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Servicen Commission [ AIR 2011 SC 3547 ]. 13. This Court has been informed that the similar issue came up in SBCWP No.9844/2023; Vaibhav Dangar Vs. State of Rajasthan, before a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, wherein vide order dated 19.07.2023, the Coordinate bench has dismissed the writ petition with following findings/observations. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.07.2023 i.e. Para Nos. 11 to 16 is being reproduced as under:- “11. A simple look at Rule 19 of the Rules of 1973 which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the same is meant for scrutinizing the applications. Simply because the rules provide that the merit shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination, it cannot be said that the recruiting agency cannot require completion of internship. 12. Simply because the rules provide that the merit shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination, it cannot be said that the recruiting agency cannot require completion of internship. 12. Maybe, the petitioner is having mark sheet showing that he has cleared all papers of BAMS, but if Rule 10 which is the relevant provision dealing with the eligibility criteria or requisite qualification is taken into consideration, it is clear that the requirement is, degree in Ayurveda. In the opinion of this Court, a candidate having degree of BAMS is necessarily required to complete his/her internship. Internship is an integral part of BAMS course and unless internship is complete, a person can neither claim himself/herself to have completed BAMS course nor can he be given degree of BAMS. 13. This Court is not much convinced by the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier recruitment the candidates were required to furnish internship certificate at the time of document verification. On account of misconception or misreading of law or for whatever reasons, if the respondents had permitted the candidates who were undertaking the internship, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that too when Rule 10 of the Rules of 1973 does not permit so. 14. So far as the interim order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Jaipur Bench is concerned, a look thereat reveals that the respondents did not join the issue and having put in appearance, they had sought time for filing the reply and thus the order is practically an ex-parte order. 15. Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondent-State has clarified the stand of the State, as has been noticed hereinabove. Hence, the interim order passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court is to be ignored, more particularly when this Court has heard the submissions made by rival counsel and decided the issue. 16. The present writ petition is devoid of force and hence, dismissed.” 14. In view of the afore-referred judgments and in order to maintain the judicial comity and discipline, this Court has concurrence with the view of the Coordinate Bench expressed in case of Vaibhav Dangar (Supra). 15. 16. The present writ petition is devoid of force and hence, dismissed.” 14. In view of the afore-referred judgments and in order to maintain the judicial comity and discipline, this Court has concurrence with the view of the Coordinate Bench expressed in case of Vaibhav Dangar (Supra). 15. With such observations, this Court is of firm opinion that since petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification on the cut off date as determined by the AYUSH Department, petitioners cannot be permitted to apply/participate in the recruitment for posts in question. The prayer for seeking extension of the cut off date in the present recruitment upto the stage of documents verification, is rejected. As a result, instant writ petitions are failed and the same are here by dismissed. 16. Interim order(s), if any, passed by this Court in favour of any of the writ petitioners, stand(s) vacated automatically. 17. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.