Judgment :- Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Pharmacists Grade 11 as per notification dated 27-12-1988. The qualifications required for the post were (1) pass in S.S.L.C or its equivalent examination(2) Diploma in Pharmacy and (3) Registration with Kerala State Pharmacy Council. Last date for receipt of applications for the post was 8.2.1989. Petitioner put in his application for the post on 6.2.1989. Me was allowed to take written test, which was held on 7.9.1991. On the basis of the marks obtained by him, he was included in the short list published on 4.1.1993. He was called for interview on 10.5.1993. In the ranked list prepared thereafter, he was included as Rank No. 7. The ranked list came into existence on 9.6.93. On 6.9.93, Ext. P1 show cause notice was issued to him requiring his explanation as to why his name should not be deleted from the ranked list as he did not possess the required qualification viz. registration with Kerala State Pharmacy Council, on the date of his application. He filed Ext. P2 reply, where it was averred that he applied for registration from the Kerala State Pharmacy Council on 3.2.89 and did get registration on 8.2.89, the last date fixed for receipt of applications. But this explanation was not found acceptable to the Public Service Commission. So his name was deleted from the ranked list. 2. According to learned counsel representing the petitioner last date fixed for receipt of applications was 8.2.89. On that day petitioner had obtained registration with the Kerala State Pharmacy Council. So, petitioner had all the requisite qualifications on the last day fixed for receipt of applications. Further depending on his qualifications, he was allowed to take written test and was interviewed. Basing on his performance, he was ranked No. 7 in the ranked list, which was published on 9.6.93. Thereafter, it was unjust on the part of the Public Service Commission to remove his name from the ranked list on the ground that he was not having requisite qualification on the date of application. 3. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner placed before me the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan & others OT 1993 (1) S.C.220) and Dr. 3. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner placed before me the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan & others OT 1993 (1) S.C.220) and Dr. M V. Nair v. Union of India and other (JT 1993(1) SC.225) and contended for the position that the crucial date for finding whether a candidate was having requisite qualification for a post is as on the last date for receipt of application with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for scruting of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. In the above mentioned cases, their Lordship took the view that in the absence of a fixed date, indicated in the advertisement inviting applications. According to their Lordships suitability and eligibility has to be considered with reference to the last day for receiving applications, unless the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date. In other words, if the notifications do not specify any particular date with reference to which qualification is fixed, the last date for the receipt of application should be taken as the relevant date for finding whether the applicant has got the requisite qualification as per the notification or not. In the instant case, notification fixed 8.2.89 as the last date for receipt of application can that date be considered as the date with reference to which qualification of the candidate is to be assessed? 4. Notification inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist was subject to the general conditions fixed in Part 11 of the notification. Part II contains the relevant rules governing the issue. Rule 19, inter alia stated that qualifications prescribed for a post shall be one acquired by the candidate before the date of application. It means the relevant date with reference to which the qualification is to be ascertained is the date of application. So, on the facts of this case. Public Service Commission must be deemed to have fixed a relevant date for ascertaining the qualification as the date of application. Petitioner put in his application on 6.2.1989. On that day, he did not have the registration with Kerala Pharmacy Council. 5. Register of Kerala State Pharmacy Council by Ext. So, on the facts of this case. Public Service Commission must be deemed to have fixed a relevant date for ascertaining the qualification as the date of application. Petitioner put in his application on 6.2.1989. On that day, he did not have the registration with Kerala Pharmacy Council. 5. Register of Kerala State Pharmacy Council by Ext. P4 communication dated 3.5.93 informed the petitioner that on account of the office procedure adopted by the Council in granting registration, certificate could be issued only on 8.2.89 and that it relates back to 3.2.89. This communication was relied on by learned counsel to contend that the petitioner should be deemed to have secured the qualification on 3.2.89. I am not in a position to accept this argument. Take a case where the Council took 10 days time for issuing certificate on an application submitted on 3.2.89. The certificate then issued on 13.2.98, can never be considered as one relating back to 3.2.89 making the candidate eligible for applying for the post pursuant to the notification date 27.12.88. As per Rule 19 of the General Conditions, the candidate must have had registration as on the dated of his application. The date of application is a fixed date as far as the candidate is concerned. In the case of the petitioner it was 6.2.89. On that day he had not obtained the registration from the Kerala State Pharmacy Council. So he was not qualified for the post as per the notification. Viewed in this light the action of the Public Service Commission in removing petitioner's name from the ranked list is not open to challenge. 6. In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed.