JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are the doctors in the Medical Department and are in service candidates. Vide notification Annexure-4 dated 29.7.1998 the candidates were informed about the Pre-PG. Entrance Examination for admission in Post Graduate Medical Course. It was a pre-condition for in service candidates i.e. the doctors applying for such course must have served the Government of Rajasthan continuously for three years in the rural area and should be below the age of 45 years. The petitioners did apply under the category of in-service candidates. It is stated that their applications have been rejected on the ground that they had not completed three years of experience in the rural area by 20.8.1998 i.e. last date of application. A representation was submitted to the authorities for considering their names. It is stated that under the Ordinance 278-E of the University of Rajasthan framed by the University of Rajasthan, there is no provision that the experience of three years should be completed on the last date of application and, therefore, any such corrigendum as issued on 14.8.1998 as published in the news paper was not legally binding on the petitioner. It is prayed in the writ petition that the corrigendum dated 14.8.1998 be quashed and further the petitioner be ordered to be declared eligible for appearing in the Pre-PG. Entrance Examination, 1998. 2. It is stated in the reply that on 20.8.1998 which was the last date for submission of the application form, none of the petitioner had completed three years of rural service which was mandatory qualification and, therefore, none of the petitioner were eligible to appear in the Pre-PG. Entrance Test. 3. The question which arises for determination in the present case is whether or not the candidates who were not qualified of attaining the three years rural experience on the last date of receipt of the applications but had completed the experience later on were entitled to be considered for Pre-PG. test or not. 4. In the present case, Pre-PG. Test was to be held on 6.9.1998. The last date for receipt of applications as per notification dated 29.7.1997 (Annexure-4) was 20.8.1998. It was mentioned in the notification that the incomplete forms received after the date would not be accepted under any circumstances. test or not. 4. In the present case, Pre-PG. Test was to be held on 6.9.1998. The last date for receipt of applications as per notification dated 29.7.1997 (Annexure-4) was 20.8.1998. It was mentioned in the notification that the incomplete forms received after the date would not be accepted under any circumstances. According to the petitioners themselves, they did not fulfil three year service in rural area on the last date of receipt of the application as per intimation sent vide corrigendum Annexure-6. Their applications were rejected vide Annexure-7. The petitioners were allowed to appear provisionally in the Pre-PG. test by this Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another v. Chander Shekhar and others, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 611 wherein in the circumstances of that case by a majority judgment, the Supreme Court had held that the candidates not fulfilling the qualifications on the date of the application, but having acquired so on the date of interview and allowed to join after being selected, were entitled to the benefit of acquiring the qualifications at the time of interview. Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Rules in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma, enabled the Public Service Commission to accept the applications of the candidates who had appeared in the examination, passing of which may make them eligible to appear in an interview for recruitment to a post to be made otherwise than by a competitive examination, but result whereof having been declared after the date of making of the application. With the enabling provisions that no such candidate would be permitted to take the interview if he is declared as having failed in the examination or if the results are not available on the date of viva-voce test. In Ashok Kumar's case candidates had appeared in degree examination. The last date for receipt of the applications was 15.7.1982. The results were declared on 21.8.1982 and interviews were held on 24.8.1982. The case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In Ashok Kurnar's case the candidates had appeared in B.E. Examination at the time of submitting the applications and thereafter awaiting for the result and for making the selection, there was enabling power with the Public Service Commission to invoke the provisions of Regulation 37 of PSC Regulations. The case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In Ashok Kurnar's case the candidates had appeared in B.E. Examination at the time of submitting the applications and thereafter awaiting for the result and for making the selection, there was enabling power with the Public Service Commission to invoke the provisions of Regulation 37 of PSC Regulations. The candidates were allowed to appear in the interviews, but were not selected. Put in the present case, no such situation emerges from the facts of the case. on the last date of making of the applications, the petitioners were knowing that they were not qualified to apply as three years experience had not been gained by them on 20.8.1993. The case of the petitioner is rather covered by the case State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, 1997(6) SCC 524 wherein the candidates who were not having the requisite qualifications on the date of making of the applications, were selected and on the challenge having been made it was held by the Supreme Court that they were not eligible for consideration. It was observed as under - "Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning. The respondent's application was not considered and he was not called for an interview. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met. cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met. cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications 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." 6. The petitioners have no right to say that their applications should have been considered as a matter of right. But in the present case except Dr. Sunil Kurnar Sharma petitioner No. 1 all other petitioners have not obtained the minimum, qualifying marks and it is only Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma who has been placed on merit. 7. In the present case it is stated that not only Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma is otherwise on merit but one seat was kept reserved for him till further orders and it is stated at bar that one seat is lying vacant. 8. A prayer has been made at the bar that for the reasons that the petitioner has qualified the examination and is on merit and one seat has already been reserved, a similar order as was passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4713/97 be also passed in the present case. Counsel for the respondents has no objection to such suggestion wherein it has been observed as under - `Learned counsel for the University of Rajasthan however, has informed this Court that by this time the petitioner has completed 5 years requisite experience which was a condition precedent for taking the examination and in view of the fact that he has completed 5 years experience, the University has no objection in declaring the result of the petitioner. It also transpires that the University Ordinance 278-A merely states that an in-service candidate should possess 5 years experience in order to be eligible for Pre-P.G. Degree and the provision nowhere insists that such 5 years experience should be prior to the taking of such examination. However, in view of the averment of the University of Rajasthan I express no opinion in this regard, on account of the concession made by the University due to the fact that the petitioner has already completed 5 years service before grant of admission to the PG. Course. However, in view of the averment of the University of Rajasthan I express no opinion in this regard, on account of the concession made by the University due to the fact that the petitioner has already completed 5 years service before grant of admission to the PG. Course. Hence, there is no reason to enter into the dispute involved herein. The result of the petitioner he declared forthwith. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.' 9. In view of the above-said judgments and in view of the submission made by the counsel for the parties, let the result of the petitioner be officially declared and he be given the admission in. PG. Course in case he is on merit. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.Writ petition disposed of accordingly. *******