JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 24.12.1993 by virtue of which the respondent No. 3 has been accorded appointment. 2. The facts are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent Education Department for selection on the post of Lab. Assistants. On the basis of the applications a merit list was prepared in which at S.No. 1 was Smt. Meena Vyas respondent No. 3, at S.No. 2 was Miss Chetna Deora and at S.No. 3 was the petitioner Alka Bohra. The interview letters in the shape of Annex. 2 were issued and the interviews were fixed for 20.9.1993. The respondent No. 3 did not appear because her interview letter was received by her only on that day and she telephonically contacted the respondent No. 2 that since she has received the interview letter only on that day she cannot reach his office on that day and after hearing her telephonic explanation/ information she was directed by the respondent No. 2 to appear for interview on 21.9.1993. Consequently, she appeared for interview on 21.9.1993. In interview the only formality which was to be done was that her testimonials were to be checked whether they are in order or not. After cheking her testimonials the appointment was offered to respondent No. 3 being first in the merit and another appointment was offered to the person at S.No. 2 in the merit i.e. Miss Chetna Deora. 3. The petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the ground that there is no power available with the respondents to relax her appearance on 20.9.1993 and instead to appear on the next day i.e. on 21.9.1993. She was required to appear on 20.9.1993 and in terms of the conditions mentioned in the interview letter Annex. 2 she was to be struck off from the merit list and the relaxation granted to the respondent No. 3 for appearing on 21.9.1993 is per se illegal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision delivered in the case of Shainda Hasan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ( (1990) 3 SCC 48 ) and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vizianagaram and another ( (1990) 3 SCC 655 ) . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision delivered in the case of Shainda Hasan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ( (1990) 3 SCC 48 ) and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vizianagaram and another ( (1990) 3 SCC 655 ) . In these two cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where no right to relax the qualification has been reserved while advertising the posts it was not open to the authority to relax the qualification. 5. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a Division Bench decision of this Court delivered in the matter of Miss Neeta Midha v. Gramotthan Teachers Training School, Sangaria and another AIR 1992 Raj. 20 wherein the incumbent did not file his form on the last date of submission of the form and it was held that after expiry of the last date the incumbent has no right to submit his form. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Shyamalendu Nag v. State of Manipur and others (1992) 2 SCC 196 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered a case where the time for joining was given to the incumbent and the incumbent could not join because he could not be relieved from the earlier services. Therefore, the incumbent was not permitted to join subsequently. 7. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has stated that she did not receive the interview call letter before 20.9.1993 and it was only on 20.9.1993 that she received the call letter. She immediately contacted the respondent No. 2 on telephone and intimated him about the late receipt of the interview call letter and she was permitted to appear on 21.9.1993 for interview. She appeared on 21.9.1993 and her testimonials were checked. Further argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is that her merit had already been calculated and on 20.9.1993 the only thing which was to be done was to check the testimonials. Nothing substantial was to be done and only verification of the testimonials was required to be done. Therefore, her non-appearance on 20.9.1993 tentamounts to no irregularity on her part. Nothing substantial was to be done and only verification of the testimonials was required to be done. Therefore, her non-appearance on 20.9.1993 tentamounts to no irregularity on her part. Further she was in the merit and she did not appear for interview on 20.9.1993 as she received the call letter on 20.9.1993 only and after receiving the call letter she contacted the respondent No. 2 telephonically and informed about the position and the respondent No. 2 having attended her telephone has permitted her to appear for interview on 21.9.1993 then it should be deemed that process of selection was going on and it could not come to an end and it was within the power of respondent No. 2 to extend the date of appearance because this date was neither a statutory date nor a date which was inflexible. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State has stated that it is true that the respondent No. 3 has not appeared for interview on 20.9.1993 but she on telephone sought the permission to appear for interview on 21.9.1993 and she was accorded the permission. She being found meritorious and at No. 1 in the merit she was permitted to appear on 21.9.1993 when she appeared on 21.9.1993 her testimonials were checked and she was found to be entitled to appointment and she was appointed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to qualification and date of submission of form. These two things have the tendency of crating a right in those who applied for being appointed. The last date for submission of the form is the eligibility date which gives a person right to be considered and qualification is a condition which is the basis for appointment. In the instant case, 20.9.1993 was relevant for checking the certificates of the candidates. When the correctness alone was to be adjudged by comparison then on the telephonic communication if the respondent No. 3 was permitted to appear on 21.9.1993 on which date in fact she appeared then it cannot be said that any fundamental fault has been committed by the respondent No. 2 in its functions and that cannot vitiate the proceedings. When the correctness alone was to be adjudged by comparison then on the telephonic communication if the respondent No. 3 was permitted to appear on 21.9.1993 on which date in fact she appeared then it cannot be said that any fundamental fault has been committed by the respondent No. 2 in its functions and that cannot vitiate the proceedings. The respondent No. 3 was in the merit and she has been granted indulgence on account of late delivery of the interview letter, then it cannot be said that such illegality has been committed which entitles the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the case where substantial justice has been done which was within the power of respondent No. 2. 11. There is no force in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No orders as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******