( 1 ) IN these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs : " (a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to hold that the applications submitted by the petitioners are valid applications, and then call them for interview and select them on the basis of the merit and also issue them appointment orders if they are selected to posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Public works and Irrigation Department of the Government of Karnataka; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding that non-consideration of the cases of the petitioners for interview and selection to the posts of assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Public Works and Irrigation Department by the 2nd respondent on the basis that they had not completed their B. E. Degree as on 31st July, 1985, is totally invalid, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of india. " The petitioners, pursuant to the advertisement published by the 2nd respondent calling for applications for recruitment to 300 posts of Assistant Engineers, have submitted their applications. The applications have been filed in time. The 2nd respondent has informed them by the Endorsement dated 13th December, 1985 (Annexure-K) that they have not been called for interview as they have not completed the required basic qualification, viz. , a degree in Civil engineering. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they were the students of the Mysore University; that they were undergoing B. E. Degree Course under the Semester Scheme; that the examination for the last Semester took place in the months of April-May, 1985 and the results of the examination were published on 2nd August, 1985; that they have been declared to have passed the examination; that on 2nd August, 1985 the interviews for recruitment to the posts of Assistant executive Engineers (Division No. 1) were not over; therefore, the 2nd respondent was not justified in not calling them for the interview and not considering their candidature for selection to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that as per the advertisement, produced as Annexure F, the last date for submitting the applications was 18th May, 1985. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that as per the advertisement, produced as Annexure F, the last date for submitting the applications was 18th May, 1985. It was subsequently extended to 31st May, 1985. The requisite qualification for considering the applications is a Degree in Civil Engineering or Diploma in Civil Engineering issued by the a. M.. E. ; that the petitioners ought to have either obtained a degree or Diploma as prescribed or at any rate ought to have been declared as passed the prescribed examination on or before 31st july, 1985; that as the petitioners were not declared to have passed the examination on 31st July, 1985, the 2nd respondent was justified in holding that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification viz. , a degree in Civil Engineering and accordingly, it was justified in not calling the petitioners for interview. In this regard, the contention of the petitioners is that as the petitioners had appeared for the qualifying examination in the months of April-May, 1985, the results of which were declared on 2nd August, 1985 which must be held to relate back to the examination which was held in the months of April-May 1985; therefore, on the last date for receiving the applications, they must be deemed to have possessed the requisite qualification. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of calcutta, reported in Narayan Fakirsa Javre v. Union of India and Ors. 1979 (1) SLR 175. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid contentions, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners can be held to have passed or possessed a Degree in Civil Engineering on 31st July, 1985. ( 5 ) 5 (1 ). No doubt, the facts of the case make it clear that the petitioners are very hard hit. Thought the petitioners have appeared for the qualifying examination much earlier to the last date prescribed for submitting the applications but the results of the examinations were not declared until 2nd August, 1985. The fact that the delay was caused by the University in publishing the results cannot be made use of, because the 2nd respondent cannot be held responsible for the delay. The fact that the delay was caused by the University in publishing the results cannot be made use of, because the 2nd respondent cannot be held responsible for the delay. On the last date fixed for submitting applications, the applicant must possess the qualification prescribed for the post. The fact the petitioners had appeared for the qualifying examination may enable them to file applications, but as long as the results of the examinations are not declared on or before the last date fixed for submitting the applications, they cannot be considered as having passed the qualifying examination. It is the declaration of the results of the examination that the examinees have passed the examination, that enables them to claim that they have passed the examination. Therefore, the date on which the results are announced will be the date the examinees can be considered to have acquired or possessed the degree. On the last date prescribed for receiving the applications for the posts in question,. e. , 31st July, 1985, the petitioners were not declared to have passed the degree examination. Therefore, the 2nd respondent was justified in rejecting the applications of the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification. 5 (2 ). It is true that only within two days the results are announced and on that date the interviews had not commenced. But, it is not possible to hold that the petitioners must be deemed to have become qualified on the last date fixed for receiving the applications merely because two days after the last date fixed for receiving the applications the results of the qualifying examination are announced and the petitioners have been declared to have passed the qualifying examination. In the instant case, it happens to be only two days, therefore, it may not make much difference. But the 2nd respondent can be directed to take into consideration the applications of the petitioners only on the principle that whatever may be the date of declaration of the results of the examination, it relates back to the date of examination. In the instant case, it happens to be only two days, therefore, it may not make much difference. But the 2nd respondent can be directed to take into consideration the applications of the petitioners only on the principle that whatever may be the date of declaration of the results of the examination, it relates back to the date of examination. Application of such a principle in a case where the recruiting body has no connection or control over conducting and declaring the results of the qualifying examination leads to startling results and in many cases it may not be possible for the recruiting agency to complete the selection in time and whenever the selection is completed before the declaration of the results of the qualifying examination, it will lead to annulling the selection. Consequently, public interest suffers and many posts for quite a long period will have to remain vacant; thereby causing great damage to the public interest. Courts of law should not become a party to creation of such a situation. ( 6 ) THE contention that the recruiting committee ought to have waited till the results of the examination were announced and fixed the last date for receiving the applications beyond that date, has only stated to be rejected. Under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973, only those candidates who fall within the ratio of Rule 5 will be called for the interview and not all the candidates who apply. This is decided on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. Therefore, it is necessary that on the last date fixed for submitting the applications for the posts to which applications are called for, the applicants must be able to submit the marks card along with their applications, so that the recruiting committee or agency or authority, can determine as to who among the applicants fall within the ratio of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Selection Rules. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not possible to hold that the petitioners must be deemed to have passed the qualifying examination on the last date fixed for receipt of the applications for the posts in question, even though they have been declared to have passed the qualifying examination within two days of the last date fixed for receiving the applications. ( 7 ) THE decision in Narayan Fakirsa Javre's case (supra) is not of any assistance to the petitioners. In that case, the applications to the posts advertised were required to be sent by the in-service candidates through proper channel. Accordingly, the applicant-Narayan Fakirsa Javre being an in-service candidate, submitted the application in time through proper channel; but it was not forwarded to the recruiting authority. Under the circumstances, it was held that the Railway administration by their own laches had deprived the petitioner therein an opportunity of making application in time to the Railway Service Commission. Accordingly, following directions were issued : "14. In the circumstances, I conclude that the Railway Administration should be commanded to forbear from giving effect to the panel formed for filling up the post of Foreman. Clothing factory, Kharagpore with liberty to proceed in accordance with law for fresh recruitment to the said post. 15. I, accordingly, make this Rule absolute. Let a writ of mandamus issue commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to the panel published under Serial no. 229 dated 26th July, 1974 for filling up the post of Foreman, Clothing Factory, Kharagpore, and the respondents are also commanded to for-bear from making any recruitment on the basis of the said panel. The respondents, however, would be at liberty to take fresh steps in accordance with law for recruitment to the post of Foreman. Clothing Factory, Kharagpore. " In the instant case, no such situation exists. Recruitment Committee-2nd respondent is not a part and parcel of the Mysore University, just as the Railway Service Commission which forms part of the Railway Administration and the applicant Sri Narayan Fakirsa Javre was serving in the railways. For the delay caused by the University to declare the results of the qualifying examination the 2nd respondent cannot be held responsible. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the Writ Petitions fail and the same are dismissed.