JUDGMENT : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Considering the identical controversy involved, the instant matters are clubbed together, henceforth are adjudicated by way of this common order. The instant order be made applicable on mutatis mutandis basis to the instant petitions. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4676/2010 is taken as the lead file, and the said petition is filed with the following prayers: “By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 26.03.2010 issued by the respondent no. 2 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quash and set aside. The respondents be directed to consider the qualification of the petitioner for appointment of teacher grade-III (General) Primary-22. The respondents be directed to appoint to petitioner on the post of teacher grade-III (General) Primary-22 as per merit acquired by the petitioner with all the consequential benefits. Any other order or relief which the Hon’ble court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for the post of Sanskrit Teacher/General Teacher Grade-III, 2008. Resultantly, a written examination was conducted on 22.07.2009. The respondents on an earlier occasion made it clear that no interview will be conducted and the written examination shall be the sole selection criteria. 4. It is further submitted in the present matter that petitioner had acquired his qualification dated 21.07.2009 prior to appearing in written examination and he was successful in the written examination and stood at serial no. 87 in the merit list. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 26.03.2010 whereby, the candidature of the petitioner was ousted, stating that the petitioner had failed to acquire the qualification dated 21.07.2009 i.e. before the written examination date i.e. on 22.07.2009. 5. Further, it is averred that in the instant petitions impugned letter dated 26.03.2010 is also assailed. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioners have fairly conceded the fact that the said qualification was acquired after taking the said written examination. It is also submitted that interim order dated 09.04.2010 was awarded in favour of the petitioner, whereby one seat was kept reserved qua him, subject to outcome of the present petition. 6. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioners have fairly conceded the fact that the said qualification was acquired after taking the said written examination. It is also submitted that interim order dated 09.04.2010 was awarded in favour of the petitioner, whereby one seat was kept reserved qua him, subject to outcome of the present petition. 6. In support of contentions made insofar reliance is placed upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 34/2015 titled as Manju Chhaba vs. State of Rajasthan which was even upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and it is submitted that a liberal interpretation should be taken. 7. Additionally, it is submitted that reliance should be placed upon the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 1999 and the amendments thereto, wherein the relevant proviso of the said Rules is reproduced as below: “Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency: (i) before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview. (ii) before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview. (iii) before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview, as the case may be.” 8. Relying upon the above submissions, a prayer is made to make the order dated 09.04.2010 absolute. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that reliance should be placed upon recruitment advertisement dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure-5) issued by RPSC wherein eligibility regarding minimum educational qualification is reflected with a special remark, which is reproduced below: ^^uksV& U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds ikB~;Øe ds vafre o"kZ dh ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gq, gks ;k gksus okys O;fDr vkosnu ds ik= gksaxsA ysfdu mUgsa vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kk ds fyf[kr fnukad ls iwoZ 'kSf{kd vgZrk vftZr dj ysus ij gh ik= ekuk tk,xkA** 10. Additionally, reliance can also be placed upon Clause 3 of the said Rules, 1999. 11. It is further submitted that before appearing in the written examination, the petitioners’ should have acquired the requisite knowledge. Additionally, reliance can also be placed upon Clause 3 of the said Rules, 1999. 11. It is further submitted that before appearing in the written examination, the petitioners’ should have acquired the requisite knowledge. Additionally, emphasis are to be placed upon the words ‘before the written examination’, which was conducted on 22.07.2009. 12. Furthermore, it is submitted that the interpretation of the word ‘before’ by the petitioners’ is redundant and the same is applied as 22.07.2009 instead of 21.07.2009. 13. Additionally, it is submitted that reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 5773/2023 titled as Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and the ratio encapsulated in the case of Shankar K. Mandal vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2003) 9 SCC 519 , whereby, Court held that the following principles can be concluded: “(1) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules. (2) If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose of in the advertisement calling for applications. (3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.” 14. Upon a conscientious scanning of the record, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, considering the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the arguments averred by the learned counsel, this Court at this juncture deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts: 14.1 That advertisement dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure-5) was issued qua recruitment for the posts of Sanskrit Teacher/ General Teacher Grade-III. 14.2 That as per the aforesaid advertisement notice, a special remark is given, wherein it is provided that candidates have to acquire minimum educational qualification before the date of written examination. 14.3 That a written examination was admittedly conducted on 22.07.2009 only, not before or after the said date. 14.4 That the definition meaning of the word ‘before’ as per the Black’s Law Dictionary is prior to; preceding and as per Merriam Webster is at an earlier time. 14.3 That a written examination was admittedly conducted on 22.07.2009 only, not before or after the said date. 14.4 That the definition meaning of the word ‘before’ as per the Black’s Law Dictionary is prior to; preceding and as per Merriam Webster is at an earlier time. 14.5 That the ration encapsulated in the judgment of Manju Bala (Supra) has no application to the instant matter as the same is of distinguishable factual matrix, wherein written examinations were conducted over a period/ on multiple dates and had continuing operations. 14.6 Additionally, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Shankar K. Mandal (Supra), wherein a principle is laid down that when cut-off date is categorically mentioned in public recruitment advertisement then it should be interpreted in literal manner and in the specific form of the context therein. 14.7 That the Rules of 1999 has also categorically used the words as before appearing in the written examination. 15. In summation of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the instant matter, and considering the overall observations made insofar; specifically taking note of the definition of the word ‘before’ given under different dictionaries, this Court is of the opinion that the date of written examination, i.e. 22.07.2009 cannot be taken as a date as per its connotation but a literal interpretation of the word ‘before’ should be considered. Moreover, the date of ‘before the written examination’ could be considered as a date before it only. Further, if the petitioners’ have qualified the requisite examination and have acquired the relevant documents before 22.07.2009, which is the date of written examination then the petitioners’ would definitely be eligible qua the said recruitment, howsoever, on the contrary, the requisite documents were received on 22.07.2009. 16. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.