S. D. Pandit ( 1 ) RULE D. B. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the material on record. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of this writ petition finally. ( 2 ) PETITIONER joined the respondent in November 1968 as a Manager (Duty Free Shop ). In 1973 he was promoted as a Marketing Manager. He was promoted as a Product Sales Manager on 22. 7. 1974. In 1976 he was promoted as a Controller of Duty Free Shop. In 1983 he was promoted as a Regional Manager (West) and posted at Bombay. After some time he was transferred to Delhi. In 1987 he was posted as Deputy General Manager (C-ATT ). ( 3 ) THE respondent had issued a public advertisement for various posts, including the post of General Manager (Marketing International Product ). In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner and others had applied and the Departmental Selection Committee had selected one Mr. Tulli. Petitioner had filed CW. 3167/89 challenging the said selection. His writ petition was allowed and the appointment of Mr. Tulli was quashed but he was not promoted and appointed as a General Manager. Therefore, he filed another petition bearing No. 3449/90, which is pending in this Court. During the pendency of these proceedings he was promoted and he assumed duties as a General Manager on regular basis with effect from 5. 1. 1993. ( 4 ) THERE are vacancies in the post of Vice President and, therefore, a circular was issued on 18. 10. 1994 to fill in the said posts. But the said posts were not filled in till the date of filing of the present petition. Petitioner has come before this Court with the averment that the respondents have secretly issued letters to 5/6 officers in order to fill in the five vacancies and the respondents desire to have a hurried selection in a clandestine manner and the interviews are fixed on 23. 3. 1995 and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition to get a writ of mandamus in order to restrain the respondents from holding the interviews. According to him the said selection is being made hurriedly as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director is to retire on 31. 3. 3. 1995 and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition to get a writ of mandamus in order to restrain the respondents from holding the interviews. According to him the said selection is being made hurriedly as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director is to retire on 31. 3. 1995 and all the eligible persons, including he himself, are not called for the said interview and the said selection is illegal and improper and, therefore, this Court should be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus. ( 5 ) THE claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents by filing the counter affidavit. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner that as the Chairman-cum- Managing Director is to retire on 31. 3. 1995 and he is hurriedly and clandestinely making the promotions in order to favour somebody is false. As a matter of fact, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was to retire on 30. 9. 1994 but he was given extension of three months till 31. 12. 1994 and again second extension was given to him from 1. 1. 1995 to 31. 3. 1995. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued and the applications for the said promotional post were invited on 18. 10. 1994 and the last date for receiving applications was 4. 11. 1994. If at all the Chairman-cum-Managing Director wanted to have the selection of his favourites and to have the selection in a very secret and clandestine manner, as claimed by the petitioner, then the said selection would have taken place before the end of the year 1994. A regular committee was appointed to screen the applications received and in the said committee, besides the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, two Directors of I. T. D. C. , the Director General of Tourism and two representatives of the Scheduled Casts/ Scheduled Tribes are the members. Letters were sent to those candidates who were found eligible to the said post and they were not sent secretly and there is no instance of not sending interview call to any person who was found eligible for the said posts. The petitioner himself was not qualified for the said post. He has qualified for the said post in the month of January 1995, Thus, he did not have the requisite qualifications for the selection to the said post as on the last date of making the application for the posts advertised. The petitioner himself was not qualified for the said post. He has qualified for the said post in the month of January 1995, Thus, he did not have the requisite qualifications for the selection to the said post as on the last date of making the application for the posts advertised. Thus, the petitioner has come before the Court dishonestly and with a false allegation that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was holding the interviews hurriedly and clandestinely. Therefore, in these circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has come before this Court with the case that the Chairman- cum-Managing Director of the respondent ITDC is holding the said interviews hurriedly and in a very clandestine manner but that claim of his is obviously not true and is made without any foundation. Admittedly, the circular was issued on 18. 10. 1994 and the last date for submitting the application was 4. 11. 1994. The applications being for consideration for the promotional post were required to be screened and when the members of the said Screening Committee were to be from various organisations it is but natural that it would take some time for screening the applications received. It could not be expected that the said screening and interviews should take place within 30 days, as contended by learned counsel forthe petitioner. If at all the contention of the petitioner was honest, true and correct then in the natural course of human conduct the Chairman-cum-Managing Director would have held the Promotional Committee Meeting and would have made the selection before the end of his term, which was to come to an end on 31. 12. 1994. Similarly, when it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had not qualified for the said post till the end of December 1994 and was to qualify in January 1995 the Chairman-cum-Managing Director would have hastened the said selection if he had any malafide towards the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE period of four and a half months from the last date of receipt of applications and the date of actual interviews could not be said to be an unreasonable delay in holding the interviews. In the case of K. Madhvan Vs. Union of India [1987 {4} SCC 566], it has been held that the postponement of the meeting of the DPC which was to be held on 13. 10. In the case of K. Madhvan Vs. Union of India [1987 {4} SCC 566], it has been held that the postponement of the meeting of the DPC which was to be held on 13. 10. 1970 to March 1971 was not an act of arbitrariness. It must be mentioned here that it is not the case of the petitioner that he was eligible for the promotion earlier and by delaying the holding of the DPC his chances of early promotion are denied. ( 8 ) IT has been vehemently contended before us by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was eligible for the said post as he had acquired the necessary qualification for the said post in January 1995 and, therefore, his claim ought to have been considered by the DPC and the failure to consider him is a clear act of illegality and a malafide act. But when it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had not got the necessary qualification for the post in question as on the last date of application, his case could not be considered by the DPC. This view is taken by the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and Others [1993 {1} JT SC 220], wherein it has been held as under: "the contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in presenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz. , even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz. , even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/ notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. " ( 9 ) THE same view is taken by the Division Bench of three Judges in the subsequent decision in the case Dr. M. V. Nair Vs. Union of lndia [1993 {1} JT SC 255] by holding that suitability and eligibility has to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications unless the date is otherwise specified in the notification calling for applications. ( 10 ) THUS, when the petitioner was not having the necessary qualification for the said post as on the last date till when applications could be submitted for the said post he could not be considered for the said post even though he happened to achieve the necessary qualification between the last date of receiving applications and the date of selection. ( 11 ). Thus, we hold that the present petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed with costs. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition with costs.