Judgment B.M. Lal, J. 1. The short questions which arise in the Instant writ petition for our consideration are as to whether the examinee appearing in the law examination of University be deemed to have acquired qualification on the date of examination of last paper or on the date of formal declaration of result of that examination and whether the candidate for P.C S. (J) examination who was fully qualified on the dates of written examination and Interview but whose result of Law Examination had not been declared on the last date for submission of application form for P.C.S. (J) Examination, was entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of P.C.S. (J). 2. The factual matrix of instant case are as follows. The petitioner in this petition Km Alpana D/o. Shri Lakshmi Narayan Sharma appeared in LL.B. final (III) year examination for the year 1988 of Meerut University, She appeared in the last paper of Labour haw of the said examination on 5-6-1988. The result was declared in the month of October 988 and she was declared successful in the said examination securing high percentage of marks. In pursuance of advertisement No AB/2/88/89 dated 16-7-1988 issued by U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), petitioner applied for P.C.S. (J) examination for the year 1988. The last date for submission of application form was 10-8-1988. The requisite educational qualification was that the candidate must possess on the last date fixed for receipt of applications a degree of Bachelor of Laws of a University established by law in Uttar Pradesh or any other University of India recognised for this purpose by the Governor which entitles him to practice in Courts of law or be an Advocate, Vakil or Pleader on the roll of or entitled to practise in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad or Courts subordinate thereto or Barrister of England or Northern Ireland or Member of Faculty of Advocates in Scotland. The candidate must also possess thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devnagri Script. 3. Admittedly petitioner submitted her application form for the P.C.S. (J) Examination for the year 1988 before the last date fixed for submission of forms i.e. 29-8-1988, specifically mentioning therein that though she had appeared in LL.B. Final (III) year examination bat her result was awaited. Having known the true position, her application form was accepted by the Commission. 3. Admittedly petitioner submitted her application form for the P.C.S. (J) Examination for the year 1988 before the last date fixed for submission of forms i.e. 29-8-1988, specifically mentioning therein that though she had appeared in LL.B. Final (III) year examination bat her result was awaited. Having known the true position, her application form was accepted by the Commission. After due scrutiny, she was allotted roll No. 5975 and was issued admit card by the Commission to appear in the written examination. Soon after declaration of result of LL.B. Final (III) year examination by Meerut University, petitioner submitted her marks sheet to the Commission as a proof that she is declared successful in the LL.B. examination. Ultimately petitioner was allowed to appear in P.C.S. (J) Examination by the Commission which was held on 3, 4 and 5 May 1990 and she was declared successful in the written examination. 4. However, when she was not called for interview, on enquiry made it was found that since on the last date for submission of application forms i.e. 20-8-1988, she had not passed the LL.B. Examination hence according to the terms and conditions of the advertisement she was not entitled to appear in the P.C.S. (j) Examination. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court and this Court by its order dated 12-7-1991 as an Interim measure allowed her to appear in the interview which was held on 15th and 16th July 1991, but it was made clear that her result shall not be declared till further orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner did not conceal anything from the Commission therefore, since knowing everything fully well, the Commission, having accepted application form of petitioner having issued admit card to the petitioner, having permitted the petitioner to appear in the written examination and ultimately having declared the petitioner to be successful in the written examination is estopped in the eye of law to prohibit the petitioner from appearing in the interview. It was further contended that petitioner was fully qualified at the time of written examination and interview therefore she cannot be punished for the delay caused in declaration of her LL. B. Final year Result which was totally beyond the control of petitioner. 5. It was further contended that petitioner was fully qualified at the time of written examination and interview therefore she cannot be punished for the delay caused in declaration of her LL. B. Final year Result which was totally beyond the control of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Commission contended that relevant date for having possessed requisite qualification was the last date for submission of application form i.e. 20th August 1988 therefore, since the petitioner did not possess LL.B. Degree on that date hence she was rightly refused to appear in the interview, it was further contended that in the advertisement itself It was made clear that the application form may be cancelled at any stage if it is found that the candidate does not possess requisite qualification etc. consequently question of estoppel does not arise at all in the Instant case. 6. One Aftab Alam Khan also filed an application to intervene in the matter on the ground that be has been placed at SI. No. 1 In the waiting list, therefore, Ms name be forwarded to the State Government for being appointed. Sri Aftab Alam Khan has also filed counter affidavit annexing therewith copy of an advertisement Issued by Union Public Service Commission, according to which relevant date for possessing requisite qualification is the date of written examination and not the last date for submission of application form for that examination. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Commission and the Intervener. 8. No doubt according to the advertisement issued by the Commission for PCS. (J) examination only those candidates were eligible to appear in that examination who possessed LL.B. degree on the last date for submission of application forms i.e. 20th August 1988 and the Commission reserved the right to cancel the, application form at any stage, in other words even at the stage of Interview. On this basis Sri Vinod Misra, learned counsel for the Commission vehemently contended that although Commission Inadvertently allowed the petitioner to appear in the written examination yet that by itself cannot be treated that Commission has waived the condition of acquiring requisite' qualification on the last date for submission of application forms. He however, made much emphasis on the condition that the Commission reserved the right to cancel the application form at any stage including at the stage of Interview. 9. He however, made much emphasis on the condition that the Commission reserved the right to cancel the application form at any stage including at the stage of Interview. 9. Sri Murlidhar, learned counsel appearing for the intervener, fully endorsed the arguments advanced by Sri Vinod Misra, learned counsel for the Commission. Giving reference to the decision of apex Court in The Principal King George's Medical College Lucknow v. Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal, AIR 1984 SC 221 , they contended that material date for determination of such matters is the date of application and not the date of examination or interview. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the Commission did not waive the condition of acquiring requisite qualification on the last date of submitting application forms and the Commission reserved the right to cancel the application form at any stage, yet crucial time for having possessed requisite qualification was the time of written examination and interview and in the instant case petitioner was admittedly fully qualified at the time of written examination and interview. Moreover, once the eligibility bar was lifted by the Commission while permitting the petitioner to appear in the written examination and by the High Court while permitting the petitioner to appear in the interview for whatever reason and the petitioner was found by the Commission better qualified and secured higher marks than some of those who have been selected, the equity does not know the half way. He placed reliance on the recent decision of Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1993(1) SLR 379, wherein 15-7-92 was the last date for submission of application forms before State Public Service Commission of Jammu and Kashmir whereas B.E. (Civil) Examination remits of the applicants Ashok Kumar Sharma and others were declared by the University on 21-8-1982 and the Apex Court held that although the results of the appellants were sot declared on the dates of submission of their applications but as they were fully qualified on the date of interview, they cannot be made to suffer as a result of delay in the results for no fault of theirs. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that according to the terms and conditions prescribed by the Union Public Service Commission, material date for determination of eligibility of candidates is the date of examination and interview and not the last date for submission of application forms. This policy is broad based and is certainly in the public Interest as better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection would be available and the recruiting authority would be able to get the best talents for the purpose. When it is said that India is one from Jammu to Capricorn the policies adopted by the Union Public Service Commission be adhered to by all the respective State Public Service Commissions so that uniformity may be maintained and possibility of discrimination may be ruled out. 11. In the instant case petitioner was declared successful in the written examination by the Commission. She was permitted to appear in the interview by this court. During the course of arguments her result was seat for and it was found that she has secured high position amongst 40 qualified candidates. 12. So far as the LL.B. Degree of the petitioner is concerned, she appeared in the examination of LL.B. Final year's last paper on 5-6-1988 and her performance in that examination was based on the knowledge acquired by her uptill 5-6-1988, therefore, whatever was required to be done by the petitioner for getting LL.B. Degree was done by her till 5-6-1988. Thereafter the result was to be declared by the University and the petitioner had nothing to do with the declaration of result it is pertinent to mention here that declaration, of result is nothing but formal pronouncement and certificate of the performance done by the examinee in that examination In other words the declaration of result is the consequence of her successful performance in the examination. If the answer books could have been valued on the same date i.e. the date of examination, she would have been declared successful on the date of examination and therefore, declaration of the result relegates back to the date of examination. If the answer books could have been valued on the same date i.e. the date of examination, she would have been declared successful on the date of examination and therefore, declaration of the result relegates back to the date of examination. Under the circumstances it , be deemed that by virtue of her successful performance in, LL.B. Examination, she acquired LL.B. qualification on the date when she actually appeared in the examination, and the delay caused by the University in declaration of her result was beyond the control of petitioner. 13. Same view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court In Sangam Lal Pandey v. State of U.P., 1990 (1) UP LB EC 706 and it was held that Irrespective of the date of declaration of the result, the date on which the last paper of the final examination in which the petitioner appeared would be the date of deemed possession of the requisite qualification. 14. In recent decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17575 of 1987 Durga Prasad Misra v. Secondary Education Service Commission and others decided en 30-8-91, in which one of us (Honourable B.M. Lal, J.) was also a Member, ruled hat declaration of result relegates back to the date of examination to which it pertains. However, selection of petitioner in the instant case was not to be made on the basis of her performance in LL.B. Examination rather it was to be made on the, basis of her performance in P.C.S. (J) Examination Admittedly at the time of P.C.S. (J) examination and interview she was fully qualified. The Commission Itself declared her successful in the written examination of P.C.S. (J) on the basis of her performance in that examination. It was found by the Commission itself that the petitioner possessed superior merits as compared with most of qualified candidates. It was in the public interest that better candidate who was fully qualified on the dates of selection was not rejected, notwithstanding that the result of the examination in which she had appeared had been delayed for no fault of her. Under these circumstances it does not appear Just and proper to take technical view in the matter, specially when in the interview also Commission found her performance better than most of the candidates who have been selected. Under these circumstances it does not appear Just and proper to take technical view in the matter, specially when in the interview also Commission found her performance better than most of the candidates who have been selected. In any view of the matter, petitioner may not be entitled to the relief claimed as a matter of law but on account of equitable considerations arisen under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Instant case, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner Is certainly entitled to the relief claimed in this petition. 15. As far as material date for determination of requisite qualification is concerned, recent decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar (supra) is quite exhaustive on the point and the decision in Principal King George's Medical College's case (supra) is of no avail to the respondents. 16. Assuming in the Instant case if the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification on the last date for submission of application forms, it was incumbent on the part of Commission to have rejected her application form at the very out set as the petitioner did not conceal any thing from the Commission. But knowing everything fully well, since the Commission accepted the application form of the petitioner, issued admit card, permitted her to appear in the written examination and declared her successful In the written examination hence under the law Commission is estopped to prohibit the petitioner from appearing In the interview and therefore, the Courts of equity would not permit such actions of the Commission to be made an instrument of grave injustice. See Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, AIR 1990 SC 1075 as referred above, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that the terms and conditions fixed by the Union Public Service Commission must be adhered to by the respective State Public Service Commissions all over India. The Union Public Service Commission and Public Service Commission of respective States have been constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution of India. Article 320(1) of the Constitution provides that it shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations, therefore, while conducting the examinations there most be uniformity at least la the terms and conditions pertaining to acquisition of requisite educational qualifications, so as to eliminate completely the possibility of discrimination. As referred above, India is one from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. As referred above, India is one from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Therefore, when Union Public Service Commission has fixed the condition that even for appearing in preliminary examinations the crucial point of time for acquisition of requisite qualification is the time of appearing in the written examination, certainly same yardstick be adopted by the respective State Public Service Commissions. 17. In view of the premises aforesaid, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The respondent no. 1 the Commission is directed to declare the result of the petitioner and forward her name to the Government for appointment, within a month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. As the candidates found place below the petitioner have already been appointed, it is further directed that in case there is no post/vacancy, a supernumerary post be created and the petitioner be appointed against the same. Petition allowed.