On 23-8-1996, we dis missed the writ petition bearing no. 842 (SB) of 1996 for the reason that in accord ance with the conditions of the advertise ment, the petitioner on the last date of sub mission of the application i. e. 1-2-1992 for appointment on the post of Medical Officer was not eligible to be interviewed by the UPSC as he had not completed the course of internship. 2. In the writ petition the petitioner had stated the claim that as he had com pleted the course of internship on 27-2-1992, hence he deserves to appear in the interview before the Public Service Com mission. 3. Armed with the precedent of Honble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and another v. Chandersekhar Anr. 1993 (Supp.) (2) SCC 611, the petitioner by names of the present petition has tried to take up the same controversy which has already been adjudicated upon. The authority which has now been cited before us, was not even mentioned when the writ petition was heard and decided. Although it is s. settled position that any question of law or authority not adduced, when the matter was heard on merits cannot be raised in review petition, but we desisted from dismissing this review petition on such a tech nical ground and preferred to decide the same on merits. 4. The principle of stare decisis, in spite of the changing social, economic and political scenerio, is generally accepted by the Courts, failing which, there would be con flicting decision and the authorities who have to act, in accordance with the pronoun cements of the Courts, shall face difficulty as to which decision they should follow, but it cannot be ignored that enunciation of law on any points depends upon the facts of the cases. In Ashok Kumar Sharmas case (supra) Honble Supreme Court (per majority) held that in order to have wider selection, it was in public interest to enter tain applications of the candidates, who did not possess requisite educational qualifica tions on the last date of application but possessed it, on the date of interview, despite express instructions in the adver tisement that such application would not be entertained. Minority view, however, was that deviation from instructions in the ad vertisement is not permissible, but, how ever, unanimously three Honble Judges of Honble Supreme Court agreed that ap pointments made in that case need not be disturbed. Elucidating any further on that point, it is necessary to have a glance over the facts of that case of Ashok Kumar Shar ma and another (supra ). 5. The State Government issued an advertisement on 9-6-82 inviting applica tions for filling up of the posts of Junior Engineers. Last date for submission of the applications was 15-7-1982. Educational Qualifications prescribed for appointment on the post of Junior Engineers was B. E. (Civil ). The applicants were required to submit attested copies of various certifi cates, including attested copy fp academic/technical qualifications certifi cates. The advertisement (as in the present case) cautioned that incomplete applica tions and applications not accompanied by requisite certificates shall not be enter tained. Only those candidates will be called for interview who fulfilled prescribed qualifications. 6. The appellants who had appeared in B. E. (Civil) examination, but the result had not yet been Declared applied for the posts. The results were declared on 21-8-82. The interviews were commenced from 24-8-82. The appellants were declared selected. The decision to allow the applicants to be called for interview was taken when they ap proached the Secretary to the State Govern ment although there was no enabling provision to do so. The Government decided to apply Rule 37 of Public Service Commission Business Rules, according to which the Commission could entertain the applications of the candidates who were awaiting results. The candidates who were placed below in comparison to appellants in nris preferred writ petition before the High Court. Their contention was that the Government ought not to have allowed the appellants to appear in the interview, as they were not eligible, till the lasting date of the submission of the applications. The Government pleaded that although there were stringent conditions in the advertise ment but the Government, since the very beginning entertained applications from the candidates awaiting results, though the intention was not made known publicly. The Division Bench of the High Court with a view to adjust the equities allowed the ap pointments of the candidates, but placed them junior to respondents in seniority. Thereafter the appellants filed the Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court. The Division Bench of the High Court with a view to adjust the equities allowed the ap pointments of the candidates, but placed them junior to respondents in seniority. Thereafter the appellants filed the Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court. Honble, Supreme Court after grant ing the leave, heard the appeal on merits. Honble Dr. T. K. Thommen, J. and Honble V Ramaswami, J. considering the facts of the case observed- "the appellants did pass the B. E. (Civil) Examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants to appear in interview and by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in public interest, that the interview was made as broad based as was possible, on the basis of qualification. It was in public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection wee not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed of no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 17 in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, too much technical view cannot be taken. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, was on the facts of this case, the correct view. Accordingly, we set aside the im pugned judgment of the Division Bench and re store, that of the learned Single Judge. In the result, we uphold the results announced by the recruiting authority. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. " Honble Mr. Justice R. M. Sahai, J. in his minority judgment held- "in legal terminology, when something is required to be done and the consequences of failure to do so are also provided, then it is known as mandatory. Mandatory character of the condi tion stipulated in the advertisement is further strengthened from the fact, that the candidates were prohibited from applying, if they did not possess the requisite qualifications. Mandatory character of the condi tion stipulated in the advertisement is further strengthened from the fact, that the candidates were prohibited from applying, if they did not possess the requisite qualifications. The expres sion shall to possessed of such qualifications, is indicative of both mandatory character of the re quirement and its operation in present Accep tance of the view that the appellants had requisite qualification on the date of interview, would have the effect of altering condition of eligibility on the date of application as being extended to the date of interview. The condition that incomplete ap plications would not be accepted, will also become meaningless. " It was further observed- "it is, however, unfair to quash appoint ments after a period of more than ten years. The High Court tried to adjust the equities amongst the parties by placing the appellants junior to the respondents but equity does not know half way. Once the eligibility bar was lifted for whatever reason, the appellants must get the seniority be cause they were subjected to same interview and secured higher merit. The appellants cannot therefore, be placed junior to respondents. " 7. However, by the unanimous verdict the Division Bench allowed the appeals by setting aside the orders passed by the High Court and restored the order that was passed by Honble the Single Judge. 8. In the light of the observations of the Honble High Court in the foregoing para graphs, we have to examine the distinctive features of the present case. 9. By means of the advertisement No. 4/91-92 the Public Service Commission, Utter Pradesh invited applications for the appointment of Medical Officers under the B. S. T. Scheme (Labour ). The essential qualifications required for the candidates was a degree in Homeopathy from a recog nised institution (including educational training and experience etc.), which consist of not less than five years academic course, according to syllabus or diploma in Homoeopathy from a recognised institu tion, which consists of not less than four years academic course, according to syl labus, the degree holders may be given preference in preference to diploma holders. The candidates ought to have been registered as Homoeopathic doctor by Homoeopathic Board, U. P They should be in between 21 to 35 years. The upper age-limit could be relaxable in case of otherwise well qualified candidates. The candidates ought to have been registered as Homoeopathic doctor by Homoeopathic Board, U. P They should be in between 21 to 35 years. The upper age-limit could be relaxable in case of otherwise well qualified candidates. The advertise ment further reads that the claim of eligibility, must be supported by certificates regarding prescribed qualifications (essen tial as well as preferential percentage of marks, reservation, experience etc.), without which no claim will be entertained and applications will be liable to be rejected. Such claims are entertainable upto the last date fixed for the receipt of the applications. Candidates must fulfill the conditions laid down in the advertisement by the aforesaid date only. Candidates belonging to any of the reserved category, must invariably men tion thdr category in the relevant column of the prescribed form, if they want to avail the benefit of reservation. No change in-category of qualifications is permissible after expiry of the last date fixed for receipt of Applications (No correspondence will be entertained ). 10. It was further provided that the applications, complete in all respects must reach to the Secretary, Public Service Com mission, U. P on or before 1st February, 1992. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner had not completed the one year, Internship Course before 1st February, 1992, which was the last date of submission of the application. He completed the one year internship only on 27-2-1992, meaning thereby that at the time when he preferred the application, he can not be deemed to be a degree or diploma holder in Homoeopathy from any recog nised institution, because such a degree or diploma is granted to a medical student, after he submits the certificate of internship and only after he submits the internship certificate, he can be registered as Homoeopathic doctor, by Homoeopathic Medicine Board. In Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), the petitioners have undoubtedly appeared into the examination and their results were declared, after the last date of the submission of the application. 12. Taking case from certain Govern ment Orders and instructions, the Commis sion allowed the appellants to appear in the interview. As they were found meritorious, they were placed above other candidates, who fulfilled the eligibility conditions even on the last date of the submission of the application forms. In pursuance of the selection appellants were appointed. 12. Taking case from certain Govern ment Orders and instructions, the Commis sion allowed the appellants to appear in the interview. As they were found meritorious, they were placed above other candidates, who fulfilled the eligibility conditions even on the last date of the submission of the application forms. In pursuance of the selection appellants were appointed. The other candidates, whose names were placed below the appellants, challenged their selection and appointment before the High Court and the controversy went up to Honble Supreme Court. The following dis tinctive features are discernible in the present case from the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) - (1) The petitioner before us did not fulfil the essential qualifications for the post of Medical Officer on the last date of the submission of ap plications. (2) If he would have completed the one years internship course, on the last date of the submission of the application and only the certifi cate would have not been issued, the petitioner could take the advantage of the decision of Honble Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra ). As in Ashok Kumar Sharmas case the petitioner had appeared in the examination, but there was delay in declaration of the result, which was not in the control of the appellants, the Public Service Commission in Ashok Kumar Sharmas case (supra) allowed the appellants to be interviewed and in pursuance of the selection they were found to be meritorious and were placed above the candidates, while in the present case the Commission did not find the petitioner eligible for interview and his merit was never adjudged. (3) In Ashok Kumar Sharmas case (supra) the candidates who were placed below the appel lants challenged the selection and appointment of the appellants, while in the present case the petitioner has staked his claim for being inter viewed by the Public Service Commission. (4) In Ashok Kumar Sharmas case (supra) in between appellants and private respondents, the dispute pertained to the sincerity. Honble the single Judge of the High Court as well as Honble the Supreme Court considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case adjusted equities between the appellants and the private respon dents. 13. (4) In Ashok Kumar Sharmas case (supra) in between appellants and private respondents, the dispute pertained to the sincerity. Honble the single Judge of the High Court as well as Honble the Supreme Court considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case adjusted equities between the appellants and the private respon dents. 13. In view of the aforesaid situation, we are of the view that the facts and circumstance of the case in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. The observations of Honble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma case (supra) were based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 14. The view, which we have taken finds support from the pronouncement of Honble Supreme Court in U. P. Public Ser vice Commission. U. P. Allahabad and another v. Alpana, 1994 (2)-SSC, 723, wherein Honble Supreme Court also considered the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra ). The dispute in the case of Ms. Al pana (supra) has arisen on the basis of ad vertisement issued by the Public Service Commission, inviting supplications for ap pearing at a competitive examination, called the U. P. Nyayik Sewa (Munsif) Ex amination 1988, for selection of candidates for appointment to the said post. The essen tial qualifications for appearing in the Examination was that a candidate must pos sess 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 be entitled to practice in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad or courts subordinate thereto, etc. The last date for receipt of the applications was stated in paragraph 2 of the advertisement to be 20th August, 1988. 14-A. According to the said advertise ment, the candidates applying in pursuance of the advertisement had to possess by the last date, a degree of Bachelor of Laws, fixed for the receipt of the application i. e. 20th August, 1988. 14-A. According to the said advertise ment, the candidates applying in pursuance of the advertisement had to possess by the last date, a degree of Bachelor of Laws, fixed for the receipt of the application i. e. 20th August, 1988. According to the said adver tisement the essential requirement was that an application would be accompanied by an attested copy, inter alia of the Law Degree Examination certificate and markshet of such examination. Ms. Alpana although did not possess a degree of Bachelor of Laws, on the last date of advertisement also applied for her selection. She cleared the law degree examination in October, 1988 when the results were declared. The Public Service Commission allowed her to appear at the examination held on 3rd, 4th and 5th May, 1990. As Ms. Alpana has cleared the examination, she expected a call for interview. As she did not receive a call, she made in quiries and then it transpired, that Public Service Commission did not call her for the interview for the reason that she did not pass law degree examination on or before Augest 20, 1988. 15. Thereafter she filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the order dated July 12,1991. The High Court directed the Public Service Commis sion to call her for interview to be held on 15th and 16th July, 1991. The High Court further directed the Public Service Commis sion to withhold the result until further orders. Pursuant to that order, she was inter viewed and the result was kept in abeyance. On March 17,1993, the High Court, finally disposed of the matter by directing the Public Service Commission to declare her result and if successful forward her name to the State Government for appointment, within a month from the date of presenta tion of a certified copy of the High Court order. 16. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case Honble Mr. A. M. Ahmadi, J. speaking far the Bench indicated- "on a plain reading of the advertisement it becomes clear that the candidate applying in pur suance of the advertisement had to possess a Degree of Bachelor of Laws on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, such date in the instant case being August 20, 1988. A. M. Ahmadi, J. speaking far the Bench indicated- "on a plain reading of the advertisement it becomes clear that the candidate applying in pur suance of the advertisement had to possess a Degree of Bachelor of Laws on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, such date in the instant case being August 20, 1988. Not only that, but it was further provided that the applications shall be accompanied by an attested copy, inter alias of Law Degree Examination Certificate and mark sheet of such examination. This requirement could never have been fulfilled by those who had not passed the examination by August 20, 1988. Admittedly, the respondent herein had appeared at the law degree examination, the result whereof had not been declared till August 20, 1988. " 17. Dealing with the ratio of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) it was held- "therefore, it was not a case of extension of Rule 37 by analogy, but factually the appropriate authority had taken a decision to follow the same procedure. Whether this decision was correct or not was nut gone into as Sahai, J. was of the view that it would be unfair to quash selection after such a long lapse of time. It was thus on equitable considerations that the learned Judge ultimately agreed with the order proposed by the majority. Two things stand out from this judgment, namely, the majority applied by analogy the principle of Rule 37 whereas Sahai, J. endorsed the decision on equita the considerations. It must, however, be noticed that in that case a conscious decision was taken by the Secretary of the Department that such candidates who submitted the applications after the last date for receipt of applications but before the interviews were held should be con sidered eligible for appointment. This decision was not challenged and its validity was not re quired to be gone into. Pursuant to this decision such candidates were examined and selected on merits and were ultimately appointed. It was only when they were granted seniority over others that the latter challenged their appointments after a long lapje of time. The Court was, therefore, reluctant to disturb the Status quo. " It was further observed- "in the facts of the case, we fail to ap preciate, how the ratio of the said decision of this Court can be attracted. The Court was, therefore, reluctant to disturb the Status quo. " It was further observed- "in the facts of the case, we fail to ap preciate, how the ratio of the said decision of this Court can be attracted. The facts of the case of this case reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply, since the last date fixed for receipt of applications was August 20, 1988. No Rule or practice is shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of her application. The Public Ser vice Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview. " 18. While setting aside the order of the High Court Honble Supreme Court ob served- "this approach of the High Court cannot be supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission, to interview her, in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied, as the result of the examination was not declared, before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach is recognised, there would be several applications received from such can didates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities, but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, there by causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal. " 19. In view of observations of Honble Supreme Court in Ms. Alpana (supra ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . we reiterate and uphold our ear lier view. No injinity or the error of law, much less manilest error of law, has been pointed out in our judgment, passed in the writ petition, which requires further ex amination or intervention by this Court. 20. This review application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Review dismissed. .