ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board in prescribing minimum 40% marks in each paper to be a condition for recommending a candidate’s name for appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that such condition was not mentioned in the advertisement dated 01.02.2022 pursuant to which the petitioners had applied. While asserting that such decision was taken and corrigendum was issued subsequently (on 30.06.2022), after the written examination has been conducted on 18.06.2022, he argued that the bar of securing at least 40 marks in each paper is illegal, as the respondents have applied a criterion which was not existing in the initial advertisement. 3. The petitioners having secured 82.13239, 94.4445 marks respectively have alternatively prayed that if their marks are calculated they have secured 40% marks and hence, they be declared successful. 4. It is to be noted that petitioner No.1 and 2 secured 60.6061 (Paper-I) and 21.5278 (Paper-II) and 66.6667 (Paper-I) and 27.7778 (Paper-II) out of 100, respectively. Neither of the petitioners have secured atleast 40 marks in Paper-II. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material. 6. It is to be noted that the advertisement dated 01.02.2022 inviting applications for Basic Computer Instructor and Senior Computer Instructor clearly makes mention of the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2021”). Para No.21 of the advertisement in question provides the scheme and syllabus of competitive examination for the post of Senior Computer Instructor and Basic Computer Instructor. The Scheme and syllabus in question makes clear reference of paper, topics, time (2 hours) and the marks (100), however without any stipulation about minimum marks to be secured. 7. The syllabus and scheme of examination in question is governed by Rule 28 of the Rules of 2021, which reads thus:- “28. Recommendations of the Commission/Board/Committee/Appointing Authority.-The Commission/Board or the Committee or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination/interview and forward the same to the Appointing Authority. Recommendations of the Commission/Board/Committee/Appointing Authority.-The Commission/Board or the Committee or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination/interview and forward the same to the Appointing Authority. The Commission/Board or the Committee or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 40% marks in each of the papers of the competitive examination: Provided that.- (i) the percentage fixed as above shall be relaxed by 5% for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (ii) the Commission/Board/Committee may also, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list category wise. The Commission/Board may on requisition, recommend names of such candidates, in order of merit to the Appointing Authority, within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by them/it to the Appointing Authority.” 8. A simple look at the underscored position of above quoted rule makes it abundantly clear that a candidate has to secure minimum 40% marks in each of the papers of the competitive examination. 9. When the recruitment is governed by the Rules of 2021, irrespective of the fact whether such condition of securing minimum 40% marks is given in the advertisement or not, the selection Board could recommend names of only those candidates, who have cleared the lower bar of securing 40% marks. 10. As a matter of fact, by issuing corrigendum dated 30.06.2022 the Selection Board has simply clarified already prevailing statutory position. The same does not amount to putting additional condition. 11. The argument which was advanced before the Jaipur Bench of this Court emanates from the principle that “the rules of game cannot be changed, once the game has begun”. 12. Whereas in the instant case, Rule 28 of the Rules of 2021 itself provided that a candidate has to secure minimum 40% marks in each of the papers of the competitive examination and what has been done by the Selection Board in the instant case is, that mandate of rule 28, which was already existing and prevailing, has been brought to the notice of the candidates. Such an attempt by no stretch of imagination can be construed to be a situation where the rules of game have been changed. 13. In the opinion of this Court, merely because the advertisement did not reflect the condition of securing minimum 40% marks, the petitioners cannot claim that the same having been subsequently provided is illegal. More particularly, when no other criterion for passing or passing marks has been prescribed. 14. Petitioners' argument if analysed logically turns out to be, that had this condition been given in the advertisement, they would have strived to secure more marks so as to make it 40%. A candidate is supposed to and expected to give his best regardless of any bar or minimum percentage fixed. This Court hardly finds any merit in petitioners' case. 15. The petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed. 16. Stay application also stands dismissed.