ORDER The Court 1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up tor final disposal today. 2. for filling up vacancies of teaching staff at ELTC/TATA. BSP & TPKR. options from eligible regular Elecl. Loco Rg. Supervisors. Elecl. mail/express drivers, passenger-drivers and goods drivers were invited. The posts in question were the deputation posts and the selected persons after completing the tenure were liable to be repatriated, The last date for receipt of the options was fixed as 10.6.1999. One of the predominant and primary conditions was that the optees should have at least three years experience. The relevant part of the Circular dated 17.5.1999 which had invited options, reads thus in so far as the cut-off date as fixed therein is concerned : "The option (sic) received as per format should be forwarded to this office by 10.06.99 in one lot (not in a piece- meal) and no option will be entertained after 10.6.99." 3. The petitioner also exercised his option. A list of the eligible candidates was prepared vide Circular dated 6/10th. September. 1999 In which the name of 23 persons figured. The name of the petitioner is at Sl. No. 17. The order was issued on 12.1.2000 posting four persons on tenure basis as Instructors in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10, 500/-. The petitioner was at Sl. No. 4 of this promotion/posting/deputation order. The respondents challenged the petitioners selection on the only ground that as on 10.6.1999 (cut-oil date), he did not possess the requisite three years experience. On the factual aspect, this allegation is not denied or disputed. The petitioners case is that even though on 10.6.1999, he did not possess the requisite three years experience, he did possess the same at the time of consideration. 4. The Tribunal, while dealing with the lack of requisite experience by the petitioner as on the cut-off date, observed as under ; "8. The office order dated 17th. May, 1999 (Annexure- A/1), inviting option from the candidates of feeder posts clearly spelt out that the candidates may have at least three years experience and also that the option so received as per format, should be forwarded to the respondents office by 10th June. 1999, in one lot and not in piece-meal and further, that no option will be entertained after 10th June. 1999. That being as such, the cut-off date was definitely 10th June. 1999, in one lot and not in piece-meal and further, that no option will be entertained after 10th June. 1999. That being as such, the cut-off date was definitely 10th June. 1999. Further, it would be found that the candidates offering their options were named in the office order dated 6/10th September. 1999 (Annexure R/4), which clearly depicts that the respondent No. 5 (Sri P.N. Singh), was promoted as Goods Driver only on 17th July. 1996. Even this letter (Annexure-R/4) makes mention that the applicants, who had not yet completed three years service as Goods Driver had not been considered. If the experience of respondent No. 5. Shri P.N. Singh, is counted from the date of his promotion te. 17th July. 1996. he definitely fell short of three years requisite experience on the post by a month. Even though the lack of experience was marginal on the cut-off date i.e. on 10th June. 1999, it was definitely required to be adhered to very strictly. Neither there was any scope left for relaxation, nor do we find that such relaxation was ever granted in the case of respondent No. 5. Shri P.N. Singh. In this view of the matter, there was no option left with us than to declare the said respondent No. 5 as a candidate not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for selection/promotion to the post of Instructor. This would certainly lead to a conclusion that the promotion, as given to the respondent No. 5. Shri P.N. Singh, by the impugned office order was invalid and the same cannot be sustained in law. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no hesitation to allow the instant O.A. and therefore, we do it as such, the impugned orders Annexures A/2 & A/5. so far it related to respondent No. 5, Shri P-N. Singh. are hereby quashed. It is further directed that the official respondents would consider the candidature of the applicants to fill in the vacancy of the post of instructor, vacated by the respondent No. 5 as per the screening test already held during the relevant period and also in accordance with law." 5. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 6 and 12 has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhipinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2022. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 6 and 12 has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhipinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2022. In para 13 of this judgment, their Lordships observed as under : "13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Aahok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 JT SC 99 : AP Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra. (1990) 4 Serv LR 233 (SC); Dist. Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 4 Serv LR 237 (SO : Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan. (1993) 1 JT (SC) 220 ; 1993 AIR SCW 1488 : Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India. (1993) 2 SCC 429 ; 1993 Lab IC 1111 and U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad v. Kalpana, (1994) 1 JT (SC) 94 : 1994 AIR SCW 2861, the High Court has held (i) that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications ; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice." 6. There is no manner of doubt whatsoever that in the present case. 10.6.1999, for all intents and purposes, was the date fixed as the cut-off date. As noticed, the communication dated 17.5.1999 clearly spelt out that no option shall be received or entertained after 10.6.1999: that all options in one lot must be forwarded by 10.6.1999. There is no manner of doubt whatsoever that in the present case. 10.6.1999, for all intents and purposes, was the date fixed as the cut-off date. As noticed, the communication dated 17.5.1999 clearly spelt out that no option shall be received or entertained after 10.6.1999: that all options in one lot must be forwarded by 10.6.1999. When 10.6.1999 was the last date for the receipt of the options, applying the ratio of the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh (supra), it was incumbent that every optee who opted for consideration must possess the requisite experience of three years as on 10.6.1999. There may be cases where the requisite experience may come up at a later date, (but at a point of time before the date of consideration), but that should be of no avail, because any eligibility after the cut off date would debar the candidate from consideration, in asmuch as it would take away the valuable right of consideration of others, as it would expand the arena of competition and include within its fold such persons who, on the cutoff date, were not eligible for consideration. Inclusion of the persons not being eligible would definitely vitiate the selection process. We have no hesitation in holding that the Railway Administration acted illegally in including the petitioners name in the consideration zone despite the fact that on the cut-off date, he was not eligible on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience as on that date. Thus, the Tribunal was absolutely right and justified in quashing and setting aside his selection and appointment. We record our full agreement and on that ground, dismiss the writ petition, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. The interim direction issued on 12.10.2001 shall stand vacated forthwith.