JUDGMENT : 1. This joint petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging rejection of their candidatures for the post of Lecturers Music (Vocal) and have prayed that they may be treated as eligible for holding the aforesaid post ignoring the requirement of “Good Academic Record” in the light of UGC (Minimum Qualification Required for the Appointment and Teacher and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standard in Higher Education), Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Regulations of 2018’) and accordingly, they may be appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.01.2015. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner No.1 claims to possess qualification of Secondary, Senior Secondary, Graduation with Arts Subjects as well as Post Graduate Degree in Music with First Division. He also owns to his credit certificates of NET and SLET as well as Degree of Ph.D. It has also been mentioned in the petition that the petitioner No.1 is working as Lecturer (Indian Music)since 28.01.2016. 3. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he also claims to possess certificates of Secondary, Senior Secondary, Graduation with Arts subjects, Master in Arts as well as certificate of NET issued by UGC. As per the writ petition, he belongs to ST category. 4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan, issued one advertisement dated 12.01.2015 whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of College Lecturer Music (Vocal). Initially, seven vacancies in the aforesaid subject was sought to be filled, out of which two vacancies were reserved for SC candidates and three for ST category. Thereafter, one corrigendum was issued whereby vacancies were increased from 7 to 8. In addition to vacancies shown in original advertisement, one vacancy of OBC was added. 5. Entire recruitment process along with all the necessary details has been reflected in the advertisement. The educational qualifications required for the aspirants intending to apply pursuant to advertisement have also been given in Clause 4.4.2 of the advertisement in the following manner:- “4.4.2. MUSIC, PERFORMING ARTS, VISUAL ARTS AND OTHER TRADITIONAL INDIAN ART FORMS LIKE SCULPTURE ETC. 4.4.2.1 MUSIC AND DANCE DISCIPLINE (i) Good academic record with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master’s Degree level, in the relevant subject or an equivalent degree from an Indian/Foreign University. MUSIC, PERFORMING ARTS, VISUAL ARTS AND OTHER TRADITIONAL INDIAN ART FORMS LIKE SCULPTURE ETC. 4.4.2.1 MUSIC AND DANCE DISCIPLINE (i) Good academic record with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master’s Degree level, in the relevant subject or an equivalent degree from an Indian/Foreign University. (ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR, or similar test accredited by the UGC. (iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in the sub-clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.2.1, candidates, who are, or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. (iv) NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. OR i. A traditional and a professional artist with highly commendable professional achievement in the concerned subject, who should have: (a) Studied under noted/reputed traditional masters and has thorough knowledge to explain the subject concerned. (b) A high grade artist of AIR/TV; and (c) Ability to explain the logical reasoning of the subject concerned and adequate knowledge to teach theory with illustrations in that discipline.” 6. Petitioners have come out with a case that although they are possessing the requisite educational qualification shown in the advertisement, yet the term “Good Academic Record”, mentioned in the advertisement is causing prejudice to the petitioners for the reason that although for the purpose of selection, at the best only the marks obtained in minimum qualification required for eligibility criteria ought to be taken into consideration, yet in the garb of aforesaid term “Good Academic Record”, the respondents have also put minimum bench mark of marks even in Secondary/High School, Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary. As per advertisement; the candidates applying pursuant to aforesaid advertisement are required to possess at least 50% marks even in the School examinations and 55% marks in Masters’ Degree; as well as 55% aggregate marks in School Examinations and Graduation. 7. As per advertisement; the candidates applying pursuant to aforesaid advertisement are required to possess at least 50% marks even in the School examinations and 55% marks in Masters’ Degree; as well as 55% aggregate marks in School Examinations and Graduation. 7. The term “Good Academic Record” has been defined in letter/Circular dated 21.02.2014 issued by the Principle Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, which reads as under:- “Hence with reference to the above said UGC Regulations, State Government deines the terms “Good Academic Record” for the appointment of Lecturers in all faculties in Government Colleges as follows:- “Good Academic Record” means an average at least 55% in three examinations preceding to Masters’ Degree with least 50% in graduation and any one of Secondary/High School, Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary or equivalent grades in the point scale wherever grading system is followed without including any grace marks and/or rounding off to make it 55%or 50% as the case may be.” 8. The petitioners are also relying upon one of the conditions mentioned in advertisement dated 12.01.2015 in order to show that the recruitment process to be followed for recruitment under the advertisement shall be subject to any changes in the position of reservation; as well as process of recruitment and recruitment examination shall be conducted accordingly pursuant to any such amendment, for which information shall be given within time. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners qualified in the recruitment process and were also selected provisionally for interview, yet vide letter dated 16.08.2018, the candidature has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners do not have minimum 55% marks in Secondary/Senior Secondary examinations and they also do not possess aggregate/average 55% marks in Secondary/Senior Secondary/Graduation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also indicated that the requirement of “Good Academic Record” has subsequently been amended vide Notification dated 18.07.2018 and after such Notification in the year 2018 requirement of possessing “Good Academic Record” is no longer in existence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also indicated that the requirement of “Good Academic Record” has subsequently been amended vide Notification dated 18.07.2018 and after such Notification in the year 2018 requirement of possessing “Good Academic Record” is no longer in existence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that looking to the note in the advertisement for suitably changing the recruitment process in case of any amendment, now since pursuant to Notification dated 18.07.2018, “Good Academic Record” is not an essential requirement for the purpose of eligibility, hence, rejection of candidature on account of not possessing “Good Academic Record” is illegal and they should have been given appointment on the post of College Lecturer Music (Vocal) treating the petitioner as eligible. 11. By way of filing reply to the writ petition, the respondents have opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and it has been submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived for the reason that the recruitment process has been conducted strictly in accordance with Rules and Regulations. 12. It has been submitted by learned counsel the respondents that the petitioners have not challenged the letter/General Circular dated 21.02.2014 providing for necessity of possessing “Good Academic Record”. Learned counsel further submits that even the condition of Advertisement providing for having “Good Academic Record” as an essential eligibility condition has also not been put to challenge by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents indicated that the petitioners were provisionally selected for interview subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions and since they were not possessing the required qualifications, their candidatures has already been rejected. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs B. Sarat Chandra, (1990) 2 SCC 669 , Rakhi Ray Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637 and Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2025) 2 SCC 1 , whereas learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Balai and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan And Ors. along with connected matters, lead case bearing SBCWP No. 3244/2015, decided on 20.09.2016. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the record of the writ petition as well as rival contentions put forward by learned counsel for the parties. 15. Vs. State of Rajasthan And Ors. along with connected matters, lead case bearing SBCWP No. 3244/2015, decided on 20.09.2016. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the record of the writ petition as well as rival contentions put forward by learned counsel for the parties. 15. Admittedly, the petitioners do not possess “Good Academic Record” as prescribed in Letter/General Circular dated 21.02.2014 as they are not having minimum 55% marks in Secondary/Senior Secondary and also do not possess average and aggregate 55%marks in Secondary, Senior Secondary and Graduation. 16. Submissions made by petitioners that since vide subsequent Notification dated 18.07.2018 while making new UGC Regulations, the requirement of having “Good Academic Record” was deleted and now the simple requirement is to possess Masters Degree with 55% marks and as per the petitioners since they are having 55% marks in Masters Degree along with other necessary qualification, therefore, pursuant to Notification dated 18.07.2018, they should be treated as eligible and their candidatures cannot be rejected. Such contention is totally inconceivable in the eye of law, for the apparent reason, that it is well settled by now that Rules which are applicable on the date of determination of vacancies are to be applied for the purpose of recruitment on any post in Government Department. 17. In the instant case, soon after determination of the vacancies advertisement dated 12.01.2015 was issued in accordance with prevailing Rules at the relevant time, showing the eligibility conditions required under the Rules and accordingly possessing “Good Academic Record” was prescribed as an essential condition. 18. So far as Notification dated 18.07.2018 is concerned, it is pertinent to indicate that as per the Notification dated 18.07.2018 itself, the new Regulations of 2018 shall come into force from the date of Notification. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, such Notification dated 18.07.2018 can be pressed into service by seeking its application retrospectively even in respect of advertisement, which was issued three and half years prior to the aforesaid new Regulations. Hence, it is clear that the writ petitioners have based their petition on wholly unfounded, baseless and misconceived grounds. 19. This Court while dealing with the aforesaid issue finds support from the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah and others Vs. J. Shreenivasa Rao & Ors. Hence, it is clear that the writ petitioners have based their petition on wholly unfounded, baseless and misconceived grounds. 19. This Court while dealing with the aforesaid issue finds support from the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah and others Vs. J. Shreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported in 1983 (3) SCC 284 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court in no uncertain terms has given a verdict that Rules prevailing on the date of determination of vacancies can be taken into consideration for regulating the Recruitment process. 20. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (Supra), deals with altogether different points of law that as to whether Rules of game can be changed after a start of play or not. Such judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case is not helpful to the petitioners and rather such principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court are against the claim of writ petitioners themselves, who are rather praying for applying the new Rules during the instant recruitment process, which cannot be allowed. 21. As regards judgment of A.P. Public Service Commission (supra), the point in issue was not similar to the case in hand and rather the issue was with regard to eligibility in respect of age of the candidates where final stage of selection is delayed and consequently, the candidates were eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final selection for no fault of theirs and it has been held that the date to attain the minimum or maximum age must be specific and shall correlate with the date of application. Hence, the aforesaid judgment also does not support the cause of the petitioners. 22. In the case of Rakhi Ray and ors. (supra), also the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the issue as to whether directions can be given to fill up the vacancies from the existing unexhausted select list, even when the vacancies arose subsequent to advertisement. Hence, such judgment is also not applicable in the instant case. 23. Whereas in the case of Pawan Kumar Balai and Ors. (Supra), this Court was considering following issue:- “By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the advertisement dated 12th January, 2015, for the post of College Lecturer, defining "good academic record". Hence, such judgment is also not applicable in the instant case. 23. Whereas in the case of Pawan Kumar Balai and Ors. (Supra), this Court was considering following issue:- “By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the advertisement dated 12th January, 2015, for the post of College Lecturer, defining "good academic record". The prayer is made even to set aside the letter dated 21" February, 2014 wherein the State Government has adopted the definition of "good academic record" as given by the University of Rajasthan vide Notification dated 17th October, 2012. The challenge to the Notification has not been pressed.” 24. After discussing the Rules and Regulations, this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Balai and Ors. (Supra), observed as Under :- “The perusal of definition of "good academic record" adopted by different Universities is more or less same. It requires 50% marks or second division at the Level of Secondary or Senior Secondary/Higher Secondary and also at the level of Graduation. The University of Kota has provided the definition of "good academic record" to mean second class from secondary class to Bachelor and in same way other Universities have also provided almost similar definition it provides at least 50% marks at the level of two examinations preceding Master's degree. The main difference between the definition provided by the University of Rajasthan and other Universities is about average of 55% marks in three examinations preceding Master's degree. The requirement of average of 55% of marks is not provided by other Universities. The question for my consideration is as to whether this court can interfere in the qualification provided by the State of Rajasthan. It is settled law that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in the qualification provided for the post by the State Government or by the University unless it is hit by the provision of law or the Constitution. The case in hand is not of such nature where qualification provided by the State of Rajasthan is hit by the provision of Law or Constitution. It is for the reason that as per amended provision of UGC Regulation, the State Government was given Liberty to provide definition of "good academic record" as provided by the "concerned University". The case in hand is not of such nature where qualification provided by the State of Rajasthan is hit by the provision of Law or Constitution. It is for the reason that as per amended provision of UGC Regulation, the State Government was given Liberty to provide definition of "good academic record" as provided by the "concerned University". The meaning of "concerned University" has been emphasized by Learned counsel for petitioners but have failed to support it to mean all the Universities of a State. If it means all the universities, then one definition of "good academic record" cannot be drawn as universities are having different definitions though not with much of difference. Learned Additional Advocate General has given reasons to adopt definition of "good academic record" as notified by the University of Rajasthan. The earlier definition was also challenged but had been upheld in the case of Dr. Rashmi Nair (supra). I find that motive of the State of Rajasthan is to get best possible talent on the post of College Lecturer.” “In the Light of discussion aforesaid, I do not find that terms of advertisement or Letter dated 2lSt February, 2014 issued by the State of Rajasthan can be interfered by this court. As and when qualification is prescribed by the Government, all the candidates would not be satisfied but for that reason alone, interference cannot be made in the rules or instructions issued by the State Government, providing qualification for the post in question. The argument has been made that a candidate having qualification of NET and SLET is eligible for the post of College Lecturer and for the qualification of NET and SLET, a candidate needs to possess "good academic record". The petitioners are having NET and SLET with good academic record yet they have been made ineligible for the post in question. The aforesaid argument is also considered. I find that what would prevail is the Regulations of UEC. As per aforesaid regulation, the definition of "good academic record" would be as provided by the concerned University. As per the aforesaid, the definition, as provided for NET and SLET cannot be adopted. If that would have been so, the UGC, instead of referring to the definition provided by the concerned University, could have referred the definition, as provided for NET and SLET. As per the aforesaid, the definition, as provided for NET and SLET cannot be adopted. If that would have been so, the UGC, instead of referring to the definition provided by the concerned University, could have referred the definition, as provided for NET and SLET. Thus even the last argument of the learned counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted. It is also stated that even UGC has amended the rule by which they have done away requirement of good academic record. It is by amending the rules though subsequent to advertisement. The selections in question have been held before the amendment in the rules by the UGC thus it need to be governed by the rules, then existing. It is settled law that rule of game cannot be changed in the midst of selection i.e. after issuance of the advertisement. If amendment made by the UGC is carried out then a candidate submitted application by default, despite not eligible, would become eligible leaving those who did not apply knowing that they are not eligible as per existing rule and in terms of advertisement. If petitioners are governed by amending the rules, it will cause discrimination among similarly placed candidates. A candidate making an application by default would get benefit, whereas, a candidate abide by Law would be deprived to get the same benefit.” 25. In view of the above, after analyzing the facts of the case, relevant record, aforesaid judgments, prevailing Rules and Regulations, this Court is of the considered opinion that “Good Academic Record” was required to be possessed as the same was an essential eligibility condition in the prevailing Regulations for recruitment on the post of Lecturer, hence, the respondents have committed no mistake in rejecting the candidatures of the petitioners as they were admittedly not possessing “Good Academic Record”. 26. Consequently, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby rejected. 27. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.