By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad to issue interview letter for the post of lecturer in Political Science. The advertisement for filling up several posts of the lecturers was issued by the Commis sion on 12th July, 1994 prior to the last date for submission of the Forms, i. e. 7-9-1994, the petitioner has submitted his form for selection to the post of lecturer in Political Science. But he was not called for interview as according to the respondents he did not fulfil the minimum qualifica tion. The petitioner secured 66. 4 per cent marks in Intermediate Examination, ob tained 51 per cent marks in the course of Bachelor of Art and obtained 65. 5 per cent marks in Masters Degree. He did his M. Phil, successfully in the month of Decem ber, 1993. 2. Initially fifty posts of lecturers in Political Science were advertised on 12th July, 1994 thereafter twenty posts more were included in the selection. For seventy posts of lecturers the Commission held interview for the lecturers in Political Science. Thirty-five posts of lecturers in Political Science were mentioned for general candidates while nineteen posts were reserved for other backward classes and sixteen posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe can didates. The petitioner who belongs to other backward class, raised a grievance against his non-selection on one of the nineteen posts which were reserved for other Backward classes. 3. The Commission received 51 ap plications against the reserved O. B. C. category. According to the guidelines, the Commission called twenty-seven qualified candidates fulfilling the minimum qualification for the post of lecturer as provided under the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the Statutes framed there under. 4. The contention of the Respon dents is that the petitioner has not cleared the National Eligibility Test/comprehen sive test conducted by the University Grant Commission, , hence he was not called for interview. 5. On 13th January, 1995 the Univer sity (36th Amendment) Statutes came into force. 4. The contention of the Respon dents is that the petitioner has not cleared the National Eligibility Test/comprehen sive test conducted by the University Grant Commission, , hence he was not called for interview. 5. On 13th January, 1995 the Univer sity (36th Amendment) Statutes came into force. According to which those can didates who have completed the course of M. Phil, prior to 31st December, 1992, were exempted from clearing the National Eligibility test conducted by the Univer sity Grant Commission; meaning thereby that if a candidate has not cleared the National Eligibility Test but completed the course of M. Phil prior to 31st Decem ber, 1992, was eligible for consideration for the appointment on the post of lecturer. The University Grant Commission on 13th January, 1995 also amended its earlier Regulation, according to which the candidates who have submitted Ph. D. Thesis or passed M. Phil. Examination by 31st of December, 1993 were exempted from eligibility test for lecturer conducted by the University Grant Commission, C. S. I. R. or similar test executed by the U. G. C. 6. Placing reliance upon these Regulations/statutes it was vehemently stressed by Sri Aniruddh Chandra Misra learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid Regulations the petitioner was eligible to appear for the interview and the action of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, Al lahabad in not asking him to appear in the interview was non-est. 7. It is well settled by numerous decisions by the Honble Supreme Court and this Court including Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, that a candidate must fulfil the minimum qualification at the time of the last date of submission of form. In Rekha Chaturvedi (supra) it was ob served "where the Selection Committee 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. 8. In Rekha Chaturvedi (supra) it was ob served "where the Selection Committee 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. 8. At the relevant time when the ad vertisement was issued and applications were called for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Political Science, the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum qualification as he had not cleared the National Eligibility Test conducted by the U. G. C. The Statutes framed under the Universities Act were amended on 13th January, 1995. By means of which those candidates who have been awarded Ph. D. on 31st of December, 1993 and M. Phil, on 31st of December, 1992, were exempted from the eligibility test meaning thereby that they would be eligible for being con sidered for selection on the post of lec turer. Similarly, the amended Regulation framed by the University Grant Commis sion came into force on 21st June, 1995 by means of which the candidates who have submitted Ph. D. Thesis or passed the M. Phil. Examination by 31st of December, 1993 come within the eligibility criteria as they were exempted from eligibility test but the question which is relevant for con sideration before this Court is that as to whether at the last date of submission of Form the petitioner came within the eligibility criteria or not. 9. We are of the view that on the last date of submission of the Form the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of minimum qualification. Any amendment in the Statute or Regulation by the State Government or the Regula tion framed by U. G. C. subsequent to the last date of the submission of the form which are prospective in nature have no application. The petitioner completed the course of M. Phil. In December, 1993. Even according to the amended Statutes, he was not within the eligibility criteria, because only those candidates, who com pleted M. Phil, by 31st December, 1992 were exempted from the eligibility test conducted by the U. G. C. 10. The Commission was bound to consider the eligibility criteria of can didates, meaning thereby as to whether a candidate fulfilled the minimum qualifica tion on the last date of submission of the Form. The Commission was bound to consider the eligibility criteria of can didates, meaning thereby as to whether a candidate fulfilled the minimum qualifica tion on the last date of submission of the Form. As on the last date of the submis sion of the Form, the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification, he was not called for interview. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to interfere. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .