JUDGMENT : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. The matter comes up on an application (IA No. 2/2024) filed by the petitioner for taking on record the additional documents i.e. the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6438/2019, Kailash Damor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2. Learned counsels appearing for the parties agreed to hear the matter on its merits at this stage and therefore, the matter is now being heard and decided finally. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner completed the Graduation in Arts subject (B.A.) in the year, 2011 and thereafter, B.Ed in the year, 2013 and also completed B.Sc. Math (P.C.M.) from OPJS University during Session 2013-16. He has also passed the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (for short ‘the REET examination’) for the year, 2015 with 75.33% in Level 2 and has been issued the Certificate by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer certifying that the petitioner is eligible for the post of Teacher in English language. 4. The respondents issued an Advertisement dated 11.09.2017 (01/2017) for inviting applications for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-2 (Non TSP) and the last date for submitting the application forms was 30.12.2017 and in pursuance to the said Advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application form on 15.12.2017 itself. 5. Dr. Gunjan Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to OBC (NCL) Male category and he has secured 75.33 % in the REET examination. She further submits that in view of the formula prescribed by the respondents for preparing the merit list given under the advertisement, the petitioner secured 73.25 marks and Merit No. WL-1153 and the cut-off marks for the OBC (NCL) Male category is 71.96, meaning thereby the petitioner is having higher marks than the cut-off marks for the particular category even then he is not given the appointment because the respondents while preparing the merit list has not considered the marks obtained by the petitioner in qualifying examination i.e. Second Graduation with Math. He further submits that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary, as he is entitled for appointment on the basis of marks obtained by him in the Second Graduation i.e. in Math (PCM) which was completed prior to the last date of submitting application forms. 6. He further submits that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary, as he is entitled for appointment on the basis of marks obtained by him in the Second Graduation i.e. in Math (PCM) which was completed prior to the last date of submitting application forms. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Kailash Damor (supra) & Sanjay Ashiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21592/2018. 7. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned AAG assisted by Mr. Yash Joshi, Advocate appearing for the respondents State submits that the Primary Education Department conducts direct recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade-III according to the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’). According to Rule 277 (A) of the Rules of 1996, the department prepares the State level merit list on the basis of information submitted by the candidates in the application forms. In reply to the memo of writ petition, it has also been stated that the petitioner has completed the Graduation in Science (B.Sc) after that he completed the B.Ed in the year, 2015. 8. The main arguments of the counsel appearing for the State is that since the petitioner has qualified the B.Ed after completion of Graduation in Science and the same was taken into consideration at the time of preparing the merit list. He further submits that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Graduation after the B.Ed course have not been taken into consideration. Counsel for the State is not in a position to dispute the fact that in a case having similar facts i.e. the case of Kailash Damor (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has passed the order in favour of the petitioner therein. 9. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as of counsel for the State. 10. The facts stated above are not disputed by the respondents. 11. On perusal of Online application form submitted by the petitioner, it clearly reflects that the details in regard to the Second Graduation have also been specifically mentioned, which means that the petitioner submitted all the details in regard to the educational qualifications of Second graduation in B.Sc. 10. The facts stated above are not disputed by the respondents. 11. On perusal of Online application form submitted by the petitioner, it clearly reflects that the details in regard to the Second Graduation have also been specifically mentioned, which means that the petitioner submitted all the details in regard to the educational qualifications of Second graduation in B.Sc. Math (PCM) while submitting the application form and they were in the well knowledge of the respondents. 12. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kailash Damor (supra) has observed as under : “It is not in dispute that the petitioner possessed the qualification of B.A., B.Ed. and REET i.e. all the qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, it is not the case of the petitioner being not qualified on the date of filling up of the application form. So far as the issue of obtaining the REET and B.Ed. degree prior to the degree of graduation is concerned, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, the issue has been settled in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9684/2017 (Ashish Kumar Sharma vs. State). As is clear from the perusal of the record, the petitioner had already completed his first graduation in the year 2007 and thereafter obtained his B.Ed. degree in the year 2009. Therefore, the same was not prior to the date of his graduation. Completion of the second graduation by the petitioner in the year 2016 would not, in any manner, have any effect on his B.Ed. degree as the degree of B.Ed. is for the purpose of proficiency in teaching and has nothing to do with the stream of graduation. So far as the second submission of the counsel for the respondents is concerned, a perusal of the notification dated 03.10.2017 issued by the Elementary Education Department shows that those candidates who obtained the graduation degree prior to the REET examination would be eligible for Teacher Grade-III, if he has obtained the graduation degree in an additional subject after the REET qualification. The above mentioned relaxation which provides that if a person obtained graduation degree in one additional subject would be held to be eligible, definitely would apply to the candidates like the petitioner who had obtained a degree of graduation in three additional subjects. The above mentioned relaxation which provides that if a person obtained graduation degree in one additional subject would be held to be eligible, definitely would apply to the candidates like the petitioner who had obtained a degree of graduation in three additional subjects. It cannot be the intention of any rule/notification/circular that a person obtaining the degree in one additional subject would be held to be eligible whereas, one who has obtained the degree in three additional subjects would not be held to be eligible. In view of the above observations, it is held that the petitioner is eligible for appointment as Teacher Grade-III (Level - II) English. The writ petition of the petitioner is therefore allowed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join his services at his allocated school or any school reallocated in the changed circumstances with immediate effect. The petitioner would be entitled to all notional benefits from the date on which any person junior to him has been appointed. He would be entitled to the regular salary and all other monetary benefits form the date of joining. 13. The qualification required for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level 2) Math as mentioned in advertisement dated 11.09.2017 is being possessed by the petitioner which has not been disputed by the respondents. 14. The main submission of the counsel appearing for the State is that since there was no provision under the advertisement in regard to consideration of the marks of the Second Graduation and therefore the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Second Graduation i.e. B.Sc. Math (PCM) have not been taken into consideration while preparing the merit list for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level 2) Math-Science. 15. In the case of Kailash Damor (supra), the Coordinate Bench has specifically observed that the Notification dated 03.10.2017 issued by the Elementary Education Department shows that those candidates who obtained Graduation Degree prior to the REET examination would be eligible for Teacher Grade-III if they have obtained Graduation Degree in additional subject after the REET qualification. 16. The respondents are under an obligation to consider the qualifications which a candidate possesses prior to last date of submitting the application form or otherwise if rules provides. 17. In the present case, the petitioner possessed the qualification of B.Sc. 16. The respondents are under an obligation to consider the qualifications which a candidate possesses prior to last date of submitting the application form or otherwise if rules provides. 17. In the present case, the petitioner possessed the qualification of B.Sc. Math (PCM) prior to submitting the application form and has also given the details of the said qualification in the Online application form and therefore, it was obligatory upon the respondents to consider the marks obtained in the Second Graduation i.e. B.Sc. Math (PCM) while preparing the merit list as per the merit criteria given in the advertisement Clause 6.1. 18. In view of discussions made above and the observations given in the case of Kailash Damor (supra), this Court can safely held that the respondents are supposed to consider the marks obtained by the petitioner in Second Graduation i.e. B.Sc. Math (PCM) while preparing the merit list for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level 2) Math pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2017 and thus, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level 2) Math-Science on the basis of his merit to be prepared by the respondents by calculating his marks obtained in B.Sc. Math (PCM) 19. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. 20. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II Math-Science in view of his merit prepared on the basis of marks obtained in B.Sc. Math (PCM). 21. This exercise of consideration and giving appointment be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from today. 22. The petitioner would be entitled for all notional benefits from the date on which any person who is less meritorious to the petitioner has been given appointment. He would be entitled to the regular salary and all other monetary benefits from the date of joining.