Order : (REKHA BORANA, J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to afford appointment to the petitioner on the post of Pharmacist in pursuance to the provisional select list dated 05.07.2024 (Annex.7). 2. The case of the petitioner is that his result was withheld on the count of report of verification of the registration certificate from the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council being awaited. He submits that the said report was never received and the Department took no action further. 3. Counsel submits that even otherwise the eligibility is to be reckoned as per the academic qualification and the Registration Certificate is a mere formality which would not determine the merit of the candidate. 4. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajkumari Chahar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15010/2023 (decided on 09.01.2024). 5. Counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner possessed the Registration Certificate and hence, he deserves to be granted appointment. 6. Per contra counsel for the respondents submits that the application form of the petitioner itself makes it clear that he was not eligible as per the requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. The application form filled up by the petitioner on 11.06.2023 (Annex.R/1) i.e. the last date of submission of application reflects the date of Registration Certificate of the petitioner to be 12.07.2023. Meaning thereby, reflecting the date of 12.07.2023 in the application form dated 11.06.2023 is unimaginable. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the petitioner procured the Registration Certificate on 12.07.2023 evidently, he was not eligible on the last date of application form i.e. 11.06.2023. 7. Counsel for the respondent while relying upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Zaiba & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.252/2019 (decided on 24.04.2020) submitted that a candidate who did not possess the registration on or before the last date of submission of application form, cannot be treated to be eligible. Herein, the Registration Certificate of the petitioner admittedly was of 12.07.2023 whereas the last date of application form was 11.06.2023. 8. Vs. Zaiba & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.252/2019 (decided on 24.04.2020) submitted that a candidate who did not possess the registration on or before the last date of submission of application form, cannot be treated to be eligible. Herein, the Registration Certificate of the petitioner admittedly was of 12.07.2023 whereas the last date of application form was 11.06.2023. 8. Clarifying the fact as to how the date of 12.07.2023 was reflected in the form filled up on 11.06.2023, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said fact/document was uploaded by the petitioner subsequently after the time been extended for filling up the forms. 9. Responding to the above argument, counsel for the respondent submitted that the time extension granted vide Office Order dated 12.09.2023 (Annex.5) clearly reflected that the same was granted only for the purposes of correction in the data. Clause 13 of the said order/circular specifically provided that neither document/certificate issued after the last date of submission of application form shall be considered nor can any such document be uploaded. 10. Heard the counsels and perused the record. 11. A perusal of the advertisement dated 05.05.2023 reflects that minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Pharmacist was:- “I. Diploma in Pharmacy; and II. Registered as Pharmacist in Rajasthan Pharmacy Council. vf/kekU; ;ksX;rk%& nsoukxjh fyfi esa fgUnh Hkk"kk dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk KkuA UkksV%& fcUnw la[;k ds fy;s jktLFkku QkesZlh dkSafly] t;iqj }kjk Mh-QkekZ-@ch-QkekZ- dkslZ gsrq tkjh iath;u ?ekad fy[kuk vfuok;Z gSA iath;u ds vHkko esa iath;u laca/kh vU; dksbZ nLrkost ekU; ugha gksxkA vH;FkhZ dk vkWuykbZu vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk rd jktLFkku QkesZlh dkSafly esa iath;u gksuk vfuok;Z gSA Mh-QkekZ- vFkok ch-QkekZ- dkslZ nksuksa O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa Hkjh xbZ ;ksX;rk esa izkIr vadkas ds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dh tk;sxhA vr% nksuksa O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkosnd fdlh ,d dkslZ dk gh fooj.k vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa djsA mä ds vfrfjä vH;FkhZ ds fy;s jktLFkku fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1965 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ esa ;Fkkfofgr leLr vU; ;ksX;rk;sa iw.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gSA og vkosfnr in ds fy;s bu fu;eksa ds rgr~ fu;qfä gsrq v;ksX; ugh gksuk pkfg;sA 12. The issue as to whether a candidate who had obtained the Registration Certificate subsequent to the last date of submission of application form would be eligible, is no more res integra. The issue as to whether a candidate who had obtained the Registration Certificate subsequent to the last date of submission of application form would be eligible, is no more res integra. In Zaiba’s case (supra), it has been settled that if a candidate does not possess registration on or before the last date of submission of application form, he cannot be treated as eligible. 13. The same view has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment passed in bunch of matters being led by D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.284/2020; State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Suman Khateek & Ors. (decided on 16.03.2023). 14. Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on Rajkumari Chahar’s case (supra) is misconceived as therein, it was the specific condition of the advertisement that the registration certificate could be produced at the stage of verification of documents. In Rajkumari Chahar’s case(supra), the ratio of Zaiba’s case (supra) was distinguished while observing as under:- “Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, relies on a judgment rendered in case titled State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Zaiba & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.252/2019). He urges that in a similar situation a candidate who did not have the registration certificate of the Medical Board was held ineligible by the Division Bench, notwithstanding that the learned Single Judge had allowed his petition. I have perused the judgment and am of the view that reliance on the same is misplaced by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the said judgment, the certificate was produced after the last date had gone past as per the advertisement. In the present case, as I have observed hereinabove, cut-off date to produce requisite registration certificate was during the prescribed dates of documents verification round. Documents verification was to conclude on 16.08.2023 and the petitioner concededly produced the said certificate on 11.08.2023.” 15. In view of the above, evidently the ratio of Rajkumari Chahar’s case (supra) would not apply to the present matter. The present matter would be governed by the ratio as laid down in Zaiba’s case. 16. No case for interference is made out and the writ petition is hence, dismissed. 17. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.