ORDER : 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 21.06.2016 whereby, his candidature was rejected as he had acquired the requisite educational qualification namely, B.Ed after 16.03.2007, when the result of recruitment was declared. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts appertain for present case are that the petitioner vied for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 30.10.2006. He had submitted his application form before the last date, while he was pursing B.Ed. 3. In light of the terms of the advertisement and in light of Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') petitioner appeared in the recruitment process with a stand that he would produce certificate of passing B.Ed examination later on. 4. As the facts unfolded, result of the competitive examination was declared on 16.03.2007, in which, the petitioner was not declared successful/meritorious. 5. Thereafter, certain candidates challenged the result declared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the ground that excess reservation to female candidates had been granted, which writ petitions came to be allowed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 20.09.2011 rendered in a group of cases led by Naresh Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3414/2009) and the respondent - Commission was directed to declare the result afresh. 6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma (supra), another result was declared on 30.09.2014 in which, the petitioner was found meritorious. But, when his documents were examined, it was noticed that he had passed B.Ed on 11.10.2007 after the result was declared. The respondents, thus, rejected petitioner's candidature by impugned communication dated 21.06.2016. 7. Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner having apprised the Court about the requisite facts, argued that Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 speaks of declaration of result and since the date on which petitioner's result was declared, (on 30.09.2014) he had acquired requisite educational qualification of B.Ed, he was eligible to be appointed. 8. 7. Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner having apprised the Court about the requisite facts, argued that Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 speaks of declaration of result and since the date on which petitioner's result was declared, (on 30.09.2014) he had acquired requisite educational qualification of B.Ed, he was eligible to be appointed. 8. Learned counsel argued that the declaration of result has to be interpreted in such a manner that it is relatable to the date when the result of a candidate in the recruitment examination is declared, irrespective of the fact that the result has already been declared. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the order of this court passed in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra) was clear and a direction was given to the respondent - Commission to declare the result afresh and therefore, the respondent's decision of non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of not possessing the requisite educational qualification is illegal. 10. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner's contention is not tenable in the eye of law and if the submission made by the petitioner is accepted, it would lead to more than one cut-off date or the floating of cut-off dates for acquiring requisite educational qualification for different candidates. 11. It was argued by Mr. Sharma that date of declaration of result has to be taken as the date when the result was firstly declared, regardless of the fact that the result was declared on more than one occasions. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Before adverting to the submission made by rival counsel, it would not be out of place to reproduce operative portion of the judgment dated 20.09.2011 in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra) which reads thus: “The fact, however, remains that appointments were given almost three years back, thus while not disturbing the selection as well as appointment made in favour of the candidates, I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment in order of merit, if 686 female candidates would not have been given appointment in excess to the reservation. If any of the candidates come in the merit list as against the excess reservation in favour of the female candidates, then respondents are directed to give the appointment to the petitioners. If any of the candidates come in the merit list as against the excess reservation in favour of the female candidates, then respondents are directed to give the appointment to the petitioners. It is clarified that if any of the candidates fall at a lower place in the merit list, if 686 female candidates would not have been given appointment in excess to reservation, that petitioners would not be entitled for appointment. Direction aforesaid has been given in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra). Therein also while clarifying the issue of horizontal reservation, a direction was given to provide admission to the petitioners to complete the justice. Thus, direction for appointment to the petitioners is given accordingly. Direction aforesaid may be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, all these writ petitions so as the stay applications are disposed of.” 14. It is to be noted that the pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 30.10.2006, the RPSC had firstly declared the result on 16.03.2007 whereafter, certain candidates being aggrieved of the excess reservation granted to the female candidates filed the writ petitions which were allowed by Jaipur Bench vide its order dated 20.09.2011, read with the order dated 10.04.2013. It was pursuant to such direction given in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra), a fresh exercise was undertaken and result was again declared filling up additional seats to be offered to male candidates. 15. It was in peculiar facts of such case, the Commission was required to declare the result afresh and the same came to be issued on 30.09.2014. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the facts of the present case which has led to declaration of second result cannot clothe the petitioner with eligibility or give time to acquire the educational qualification. The cut-off date in all circumstances should remain static. “The declaration of result used in Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 is required to be reckoned as one fixed date for all the candidates, regardless of the fact when result of a particular candidate has been declared.” 17. The cut-off date in all circumstances should remain static. “The declaration of result used in Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 is required to be reckoned as one fixed date for all the candidates, regardless of the fact when result of a particular candidate has been declared.” 17. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, the same would lead to floating dates or multiple dates to ascertain eligibility of a candidate, which in the egalitarian society like ours is impermissible in law. 18. According to this Court, the expression “declaration of result” used in Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 should be read to indicate the date, when the result of the recruitment is firstly being declared, which in the instant case was 16.03.2007. On such date, obviously, the petitioner had not completed his B.Ed course and therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected petitioner's candidature. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails. 20. All the interlocutory application(s) including the stay application stand dismissed accordingly.