Judgment :- (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order-dated 30.7.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.81 of 2004.) The Honourable The Chief Justice Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 30.7.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.81 of 2004. 3. The writ petitioner/appellant had prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to call the petitioner for interview for the post of P.G. Assistant in Physics in P.L.W.A. Higher Secondary School, Vikramasingapuram, Tirunelveli District, to be held on 31.7.2004. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the M.Sc. Degree in Physics on the date of the interview. What he contended was that he had given the M.Sc. examination on 28.5.2004 i.e. prior to the date of the interview and he was awaiting the result which was expected to be published in the first week of August 2004. The interview was held on 31.7.2004 and admittedly, by that date, the M.Sc. examination result had not been declared. 5. In this connection, the Allahabad High Court took the view that the Doctrine of relating back can be adopted and that the date of the last paper of the M.Sc. examination can be treated to be the date of the declaration of the result. However, the view of the Allahabad High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 which was followed in Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262 , and the Doctrine of relating back was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was held that the candidate must possess the necessary qualification on the cut off date fixed in the service rules, and if there is no cut off date fixed in the rules then the cut off date fixed in the advertisement for the post, and if there is no cut off date fixed in the rules or advertisement then the last date for receiving the applications. 6. It follows that acquiring the necessary qualification subsequent to the date of the interview will be of no avail. Hence, in our opinion, the learned single Judge rightly held that the petitioner was not qualified at that time and he has rightly rejected the writ petition. 7. 6. It follows that acquiring the necessary qualification subsequent to the date of the interview will be of no avail. Hence, in our opinion, the learned single Judge rightly held that the petitioner was not qualified at that time and he has rightly rejected the writ petition. 7. However, if in future any vacancy occurs for which the appellant is qualified he may apply for the same and shall be considered amongst others in accordance with the relevant rules. The appeal is dismissed with this observation. W.A.M.P.No.2119 of 2005 is dismissed.