JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : In this writ application the petitioner has sought for a direction to the opp.parties to consider him as in service candidate to prosecute P.G. course for the session to begin from 2.5.2006 and to quash clause 6.2.1 of the prospectus for selection of candidates for P.G. (Medical) course in the Government Medical College of Orissa (hereinafter referred to as “the prospectus”). 2. The petitioner registered his name as a practitioner after passing M.B.B.S. and completing housemanship. He was ini¬tially selected for appointment on contract basis with a consoli¬dated pay and worked on temporary basis from 21.7.1997 to 31.3.2001. Though vacancies were available, his contractual service was not extended whereas services of some of his col¬leagues, similarly placed were extended only because they be¬longed to S.C. & S.T. category, offending Article 14 of the Con¬stitution. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by P.S.C. for filling up the post of Assistant Surgeons, the petitioner offered himself as a candidate for the same and on being found suitable, was recommended for appointment as an Assistant surgeon vide letter dated 13.12.2000, but he was appointed as such only on 15.12.2001 i.e., more than one year after the recommendation of the P.S.C. He has been serving in Kandhamal district since 13.12.2002. 3. In response to the advertisement made by the Selection Committee, inviting applications in the prescribed from for selection of candidates in P.G. (Medical) Course of the year 2005, the petitioner purchased an application form with prospec¬tus with intention to appear at the Entrance Examination as an in-service candidate, and if selected to prosecute his study in P.G. course on any of the subjects preferably in clinical side. 4. As per the prospectus the last date of receipt of application was 12.1.2005, the Entrance Examination was scheduled to be held on 6.2.2005, the date of counseling was fixed 11/12.4.2005 and the academic session would commence from 2.5.2006. The candidates opting for P.G. course were divided into two categories viz. in-service and direct candidates. An in-service candidate is one, who at the time of application made, is in the employment in government of Orissa and has completed minimum five years of service, which includes all categories of employment like contractual/ad hoc/regular on 31.12.2004. The candidates opting for P.G. course were divided into two categories viz. in-service and direct candidates. An in-service candidate is one, who at the time of application made, is in the employment in government of Orissa and has completed minimum five years of service, which includes all categories of employment like contractual/ad hoc/regular on 31.12.2004. After counseling and admission, the candidates admitted in clinical discipline shall have to work for a period of one year in K.B.K. districts and in the districts of Gajapati, Boudh and Kandhamal as per the government resolution issued in their health and family Welfare Department dated 21.8.1993. However, the mandatory one year pre-P.G. service in K.B.K. districts and in the dis¬tricts of Gajapati, Boudh and Kandhamal would not be required for those candidates, who have already worked for a period of full three years in the said districts, they may be posted elsewhere during their pre-P.G.period. By the cut-off date i.e. 31st Decem¬ber, 2004, the petitioner had already completed 4 years 9 months and 14 days of service in Kandhamal district. He could not be eligible to appear the entrance Examination as an in-service candidate due to shortfall of 2 months and 16 days of service only. 5. As per the writ petition, if the contractual service period of the petitioner had been extended further or he had been given regular appointment after the recommendation made by the O.P.S.C., without unnecessary delay, he could have completed more than five years of service on the cut off date. Without any fault on his part, the petitioner should not be treated as disqualified to take up P.G. course as an in-service candidate. Moreover, since the academic session shall begin from 2.5.2006, there is no rationality in fixing the cut off date with regard to eligi¬bility criteria on 31.12.2004. Hence, in this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged and prayed to quash clause 6:2:1 of the prospectus as arbitrary and unconstitutional so far as it relates to cut off date i.e. 31.12.2004 and to direct the opp.parties to consider his case as an in service candidates to prosecute P.G. course for the session to begin from 2.5.2006. 6. Hence, in this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged and prayed to quash clause 6:2:1 of the prospectus as arbitrary and unconstitutional so far as it relates to cut off date i.e. 31.12.2004 and to direct the opp.parties to consider his case as an in service candidates to prosecute P.G. course for the session to begin from 2.5.2006. 6. The opp.parties in their counter affidavit contended that the selection process of the candidates for taking P.G. course started well in advance in the first week of December, 2004 with a view to enable the selected candidates to undertake pre-P.G. mandatory service of one year in K.B.K. districts and in the districts of Gajapati, Boudh and Kandhamal after their admis¬sion to different P.G. courses of the State as per the following programme: (a) Sale of application form with prospectus- 20th December to 30th December, 2004; (b) Last date for receipt of application- 12.1.2005 (till 5.00 P.M.); and (c) Date of Entrance Examination - 6.2.2005. As such it cannot be said there was no rationality in fixing the cut off date to 31st December 2004. Since the petitioner had not completed 5 years of Govt. Service as required under clause 6.2.1. of the prospectus he could not be eligible to appear P.G. (Medical) entrance test as an in-service candidate and as such there is no question of discriminating him in viola¬tion of Article-14 of the Constitution. According to the opp.Parties the gap between the petitioner’s contractual service and his regular appointment as an assistant surgeon has no bear¬ing in the case. Accordingly, they pressed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the Entrance Examination was held on 6.2.2005, coun¬seling was done on 11.4.2005 and 12.4.2005 the candidates took admission in May 2005 and the academic session would begin from 2.5.2006, the cut off date i.e. 31.12.2004 as fixed under clause 6.2.1. of the prospectus was arbitrary and irrational having no nexus with the object to be achieved. In support of his submis¬sion he relied upon the decisions in D.R. Nim v. Union of India; AIR 1967 SC 1301 , Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others; AIR 2000 SC 2011 and Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and others; AIR 2002 SC 3230 . In support of his submis¬sion he relied upon the decisions in D.R. Nim v. Union of India; AIR 1967 SC 1301 , Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others; AIR 2000 SC 2011 and Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and others; AIR 2002 SC 3230 . As against this, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the last date for receipt of the application was fixed to 12.1.2005 and the Entrance Examination to 6.2.2005. The date of fulfilling the eligibility criteria viz. completion of housemanship, registration of name in the State/Central Medical council in respect of both categories of candidates, and comple¬tion of five years of service under Government of Orissa for in-service candidates was fixed to 31.12.2004, so as to enable the candidates to obtain the required documents in support of their eligibility before the last date of submission of application. On being selected and after taking admission in the College the candidate has to undertake the mandatory pre-P.G. service of one year after completion of which he has to join in the College on 2.5.2006 to prosecute his study. So the cut off date fixed cannot be said to be irrational and arbitrary having no nexus with the object to be achieved. Clause 6.2.1. of the prospectus reads as follows :- “An in-service candidate is one who at the time of applica¬tion is in the employment in Govt. of Orissa and has completed 5 years of service in Orissa which includes all categories of employment like contractual/temporary/ad hoc/regular by 31st December 2004.” As per clause- 1.6.1. of the prospectus, after taking admission, the candidates admitted in clinical discipline have to work for a period of one year in K.B.K. districts and district of Gajapati, Boudh and Kandhamal, as per the resolution dated 21.8.1998 of the Govt. in Health and Family Welfare Department. As per the information contained in the prospectus last date for receipt of applications was fixed to 12th January 2005, date of entrance Examination to 6th February 2005 and that of counseling to 11th and 12th April 2005. After completion of counseling, the candidates were to take admission and work for one-year pre-P.G. mandatory service. After this one period service is over they are to join the course on 2.5.2006. So the cut off date i.e. 31.12.2005 cannot be said as arbitrary and irrational and as such it cannot be quashed. After completion of counseling, the candidates were to take admission and work for one-year pre-P.G. mandatory service. After this one period service is over they are to join the course on 2.5.2006. So the cut off date i.e. 31.12.2005 cannot be said as arbitrary and irrational and as such it cannot be quashed. The decisions cited on behalf of the peti¬tioner cannot be applicable to the present case, as would be discussed in seriatim. 8. The decision in D.R. Nim cited supra relates to a service matter. The appellant therein was appointed to U.P. Police Service on being selected in a competitive examination held in 1938. In course of time he was appointed as Officiating Superintendent of Police with effect from June 25, 1947 and continued as such till he was appointed to the Indian Police service against the promotion quota of the Indian Police Service cadre of Uttar Pradesh with effect from October 22, 1955. He claimed that a wrong year of allotment was given to him by count¬ing his seniority from 19.5.1951 only, even though he acted as Officiating superintendent of Police from June 25, 1947. In this context the apex Court held that the date “19.5.1951” was invalid since it was artificial and arbitrary, but in the circumstances of the present case the decision would not be applicable to it. In the decision in Bhupinderpal Singh cited supra the apex Court held : “.....(i) that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seek¬ing 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 ap¬plied by reference to the last date appointed by which the appli¬cations have to be received by the competent authority.” Since the cut off date has been fixed in the case at hand, this decision would not be applicable to it. 9. In the decision, Medical Council of India cited supra, the question raised before the Supreme Court was whether admis¬sion to Medical College could be allowed after commencement of the academic session. The apex Court replied in negative. 9. In the decision, Medical Council of India cited supra, the question raised before the Supreme Court was whether admis¬sion to Medical College could be allowed after commencement of the academic session. The apex Court replied in negative. In the present case the academic session would commence from 2.5.2006. As such the decision cited has no relevance to the instant case also. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further submitted that petitioner served as a doctor on contract basis from 21.7.1997 to 31.3.2001. Even though posts were lying vacant, his contractual service was not extended, whereas the services of the doctors similarly placed, except belonging to S.C. and S.T. category, were extended. Had his contractual service been extend¬ed like those of his collogues similarly placed, though belonging to S.C. and S.T. category he could have completed more than five years of Government service by the cut off date. So he was dis¬criminated as the services of his equals were extended violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Admittedly, the petitioner be¬longs to general category. He did not challenge non-extension of his contractual service, while the services of those of his colleagues belonging to S.C. and S.T. category were extended. Moreover, the doctors belonging to S.C. & S.T. category alleged to have benefited by discrimination are not impleaded in this case. So, the petitioner, at this stage, cannot claim that he was discriminated. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further¬more, submitted that the name of the petitioner was recommended by the P.S.C. on 13.12.2000 for his appointment as an Assistant Surgeon, as he was found suitable for that post, but even though posts were lying vacant, he was given appointment only on 15.12.2001. Had he been appointed as an Assistant Surgeon without unnecessary delay, he could have completed more than five years of Government service by the cut off date and would not have ap¬proached this Court for redressal. But when the State being an ideal employer, made undue delay, in giving him appointment he should not be allowed to suffer without any laches on his part. Moreover, since he has already completed more than one year of service in Kandhamal district, he is not required to undertake the mandatory one year pre-P.G. service in K.B.K. districts and in the district of Phulbani, Boudh or Gajapati. Moreover, since he has already completed more than one year of service in Kandhamal district, he is not required to undertake the mandatory one year pre-P.G. service in K.B.K. districts and in the district of Phulbani, Boudh or Gajapati. So he should be considered as an in-service candidate to prosecute P.G. course in the academic session to be commenced from 2.5.2006. As per clause-1.6.1. of the prospectus, even if a candidate of either category has served one year or more in K.B.K. districts, and in the district of Gajapati, Boudh and Kandhamal, he cannot wriggle out of the mandatory one year pre-P.G. service. Of course instead of being appointed in K.B.K. districts and the district of Gaja¬pati, Boudh and Kandhamal, he would be appointed in some other districts. So, only because the petitioner has served more than one year in Kandhamal district, it cannot be said that, had he been selected, he would not have been required to undertake the mandatory one-year pre-P.G. service. Moreover, there is nothing to show in the writ petition that some of the seats, reserved for in-service candidates are still lying vacant. In absence of such pleading, it would be presumed that all the seats have been filled up by now. In such situation, if the petition is allowed and the Opp.Parties are directed to consider him as an in service candidate to prosecute P.G. Course, then one of the candidates, already admitted has to be ousted to adjust the petitioner in his place. In that event, one without fulfilling the eligibility criteria would be preferred to one who has fulfilled such crite¬ria, which would amount to gross illegality. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the writ application, and as such it stands dismissed. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Application dismissed.