Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade III Teacher in pursuance of Advertisement No. 13/98. Petitioner has urged that her candidature has not been considered for the reason that on the date of interview, her result of Higher Secondary had not been declared. (2). The petitioner has not pointed out the date on which the advertisement No. 13/98 had been published and what was the last date of submit the application in response to the said advertisement. However, it is evident from Annexure 1, issued on 27th June, 1998, that the petitioner was asked to appear for interview on 30th June, 1998. Petitioners name did not find place in the Select List, hence this writ petition. (3). The grievance raised by Mr. B.N. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the result of the petitioner has not been declared by the date she was called for interview and her candidature was not considered properly and for the result which had been declared late, she cannot be held responsible. Thus, the Court must issue direction to the respondents to consider her candidature afresh. In support of his contention, Mr. Kalla has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Surendra and another vs. District Establishment Committee, (1). Wherein it has been held that if the petitioner submits marks-sheet, at a later stage, his candidature cannot be rejected for the reason that the marks-sheet, though requi- red to be submitted alongwith the application form, could not be filed for want of declaration of the result, which was due to reasons beyond the control of the applicant. The judgment of this Court runs counter to large number of judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, particularly in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Alpna (2), wherein the Apex Court has categorically laid down that the declaration of the result of examinations does not relate back to the date of examination and the candidate must possess the requisite qualification by the last date for receipt of the applications as subsequent attainment, even before commencement of the written examination, would not entitle the candidate for appointment. (4). (4). In Harpal Kaur Chahal vs. Punjab Instruction and another (3), the Honble Supreme Court held that a candidate, not possessing the requisite qualification on the date fixed for receipt of the application though acquiring the same by the last date of selection, is none the less ineligible. In Ashok Kumar Sharma and another vs. Chandra Shekhar and other (4), the Apex Court has observed as under:- ``The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidate shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is well established one. A person, who acquired the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date, can not be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/ published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the Authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons, who obtained the qualification after the prescribed date but before the date of interview, would be allowed to appear for interview, other similarly placed persons could have, also, applied just because some of the persons had applied, notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualification by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferen- tial basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. (5). Similar view has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan and others (5). (6). In State of Rajasthan vs. Jitendra Kumar Bhatt, the candidate did not po- ssess the requisite qualification as the result of B.Ed. Examination had not been declared prior to the last date of submitting the application but he was interviewed under the interim order of the High Court and his name was put in the Select List. The Honble Supreme Court held that a cut-off date, by which all the requirements relating to qualification have been met, cannot be ignored in an individuals case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring the qualification was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring the qualification was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others and the Honble Supreme Court directed the removal of the candidate therein who had been selected on the direction of the High Court. (7). Admittedly, petitioners result had not been declared prior to the last date of submission of the applications. As the petitioner had been called for interview on 30.6.98 and her result had been declared on 17.7.98, as is evident from the marks-sheet contained in Annexure 4 to this writ petition, she is not entitled for the reliefs claimed by her. In view of the above, the petition cannot claim herself to be eligible for the said post in response to the said advertisement No. 13/98. (8). The petition is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed without notice to the other side.