JUDGMENT. K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal by Kerala Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission') is directed against Judgment of learned Single Judge in O.P. 10646 of 1996holding that the first respondent was entitled to be advised for appointment on his placement in the supplementary list. 2. The factual position as presented by the parties is as follows: An advertisement was Issued by the Commission for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee). First respondent in the appeal was one of the applicants. There quisite educational qualification as set out in the advertisement was as follows: (i) Graduates and post graduates in Criminology, Social Work and Social Services will be given due weight age. (ii) in the case of SC/ST candidates, if sufficient number of qualified candidates are not available, those who have passed intermediate, pre university or pre University will be considered to fill up the quota (8 per cent) reserved for them." First respondent was not a graduate on the date of application. There were more than 30,000 applicants. The Commission required the first respondent to produce proper proof, if any, obtained from the University of Calicut stating the actual date of publication of the Degree Examination held in April 1991 within astipulated time. A condition was also imposed that in case of failure to produce the document, his name was to be deleted from the ranked list without further notice. First respondent submitted that he had completed writing the examination in June 1991 and the results were announced on 11th September 1991. The Commission examined his reply and found that since he did not possess there quisite qualification on. the date of application, his name was to be deleted from the ranked list 3. The above finding of the Commission was challenged in the Original Petition wherein the stand taken was that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and even non graduate (intermediate passed) candidates were eligible to be considered. Learned Single Judge was of the view that as adequate number of Scheduled Caste candidates were not available, the petitioner ought to have been considered. 4. Learned Single Judge was of the view that as adequate number of Scheduled Caste candidates were not available, the petitioner ought to have been considered. 4. In support of the Writ Appeal, Counsel for the Commission submitted that admittedly first respondent did not possess the requisite qualification; he had practised fraud, had given an erroneous statement in the application that he was a graduate and when it was detected, his name was deleted from the ranked list. Further, the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that there was non availability of suitable persons and, therefore, the Commission ought to have relaxed the educational qualification so as to make it applicable to the first respondent. Learned counsel for the said respondent submitted that the deletion from the ranked list was arbitrary. Even though under bona fide mistake it was indicated in the application form that he possessed requisite qualification, that is really of no consequence as even otherwise he was eligible to be considered in the absence of adequate number of persons in respect of the posts is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. 5. Admitted position is that the first respondent was not qualified on the date of application. The relevant date for determining eligibility is the date stipulated in the advertisement itself. Such date is normally called "cut off" date. The advertisement itself clearly stipulated the requirement that the applicants must be a graduate on the date of application. Where no fixed date is indicated about educational qualification for eligibility, the only certain date for scrutiny of the qualification will be the last date for making the applications, (see: A. P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another v. B. Sarat Chandraand others J. T. 1990 (2) S. C. 143, Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan and others JT 1993 (1) SC 220 and Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chandra Sekhar and another 1997 SCC (L&S) 913. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to prescribed date, when a prescription is made, cannot be considered at all. When applications are called for prescribing aparticular date as the last date for filing the application, the eligibility of the candidate shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. This position has not been considered by learned Single Judge. 6. When applications are called for prescribing aparticular date as the last date for filing the application, the eligibility of the candidate shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. This position has not been considered by learned Single Judge. 6. The Commission has set out the factual position stating that at the time of publication of the short list, the number of vacancies reported were 116. Therefore, 496 candidates included in the main list were called for physical efficiency test being three times the number of the reported vacancies plus the candidates who fell within the cut off marks. As there were no sufficient number of candidates to represent the backward communities including Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, supplementary lists were prepared and published and all those candidates were called for physical efficiency test. In the supplementary list for Scheduled Caste candidates, names of 80 candidates were included. As per the norms for determining the number of candidates to be included in the supplementary list of various communities, the number of deficiency of candidates in the main list due to "No Community Available" (in short 'NCA'),"Temporary Pass Over" (in short 'TPO') and "Non joining Duty" (in short 'NJD') was taken into account. Accordingly, 57 names were to be included in the supplementary list for Scheduled Caste, that is, 40 turns plus 17 NCA. In reality, 80 candidates were included in the supplementary list for Scheduled Caste though 57 were to be included. All the 80 Scheduled Caste candidates included in the supplementary list were graduates. Therefore, sufficient number of graduates among the Scheduled Castes were available for consideration and there was no necessity to draw up list No. II of undergraduate Scheduled Castes, Name of the first respondent was erroneously included in the supplementary list of graduate Scheduled Caste candidates on the basis of his false claim that he possessed requisite qualification (graduate) as was indicated in his application form. Had the first respondent disclosed that he was not a graduate in his application form, he would not have been included in the short list as not even a single undergraduate was included in the shortlist relating to Scheduled Castes. With reference to the application form, it is stated that the first respondent had practised fraud and made a false statement and so he is not entitled to any relief. 7. With reference to the application form, it is stated that the first respondent had practised fraud and made a false statement and so he is not entitled to any relief. 7. On a perusal of the application form, Ext. R2(a), we find that there is really a mention by the first respondent that he was a graduate. This was factually not so. Learned counsel for the said respondent submitted that as he had already appeared for the examination, under a bona fide belief he had mentioned to be a graduate and is to be treated as a graduate. We find no substance in such a plea. A person who has merely appeared and has not obtained a degree cannot be called to be a graduate. To that extent, the Commission is justified in its stand that the first respondent had made a false statement 8. The crucial question, however, is whether the relaxed educational qualification, that is, intermediate, which undisputedly the first respondent possesses, was applicable to his case. As indicated above, as against there requirement of 57, cases of 80 persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste were taken into account. All of them were graduates. Therefore, the question of non-availability of qualified candidates in sufficient number did not arise. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in holding that in the absence of sufficient. number of qualified candidates, the first respondent should have been considered by relaxing the educational qualification to intermediate. Inevitable conclusion is that the first respondent was guilty of making false statement and there was availability of sufficient number of graduates belonging to the Scheduled Castes to rule out relaxation of educational qualification. The learned Single Judge was not justified in his conclusions. The judgment of learned Single Judge is, therefore, set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed.