Judgment :- Koshy, J. Appellant/petitioner questions the selection of the third respondent to the post of Associate Professor “Research Documentation and Dissemination” in State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) on the ground that he was lacking educational qualification prescribed by Ext.P1 notification at the time of notification or on the last date fixed for submitting the application. He was over aged also. He was also called for interview despite he was not qualified and the internal candidates, namely, (i) Shailaja Shivaji, Assistant Professor, SCERT, (ii) Dr. K.C. baby Prasanna, (Appellant herein) and (iii) Dr. E.S. Ramesan, Assistant Professor of SCERT, the 3rd respondent herein were ranked as Rank No.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The person ranked first, namely, Shailaja Shivaji was appointed as Associate Professor, “Curriculum Test Book and Evaluation”. For the post of Associate Professor in Research Documentation and Dissemination, appellant was entitled to be appointed as she was having second rank. But, third respondent was appointed on the ground second rank. But, third respondent was appointed on the ground that it is a reserved pose for Ezhava Community, though he was not qualified for appointment as per the notification. Apart from lack of eligibility, it is also contended that the post is a single post and rule of reservation will not be applicable. It was not notified that the post is reserved for Ezhava community. It is further contended that third respondent was aged 48 and over aged as per notification as on 1.1.2000. According to the third respondent, by the time interview was held on the adjourned date, he has the required qualification. Learned single Judge found that educational qualification can be disregarded in exceptional circumstances and hence his appointment cannot be set said. Hence, this writ appeal. 2. Ext.P1 is the notification published inviting applications. Age prescribed as per notification is “not more than 45 years as on 1.1.2000”. Educational qualifications prescribed in the notification are as follows: “Essential Educational Qualifications: 1. I or II class Masters Degree (full time regular course) in any school subject with not less than 55% marks from a recognized Uty. 2. I or II class M.Ed degree (full-time regular course) with not less than 55% marks from a recognized Uty. 3. Ph.D. Degree in Education from a recognized Uty. 4. I or II class Masters Degree (full time regular course) in any school subject with not less than 55% marks from a recognized Uty. 2. I or II class M.Ed degree (full-time regular course) with not less than 55% marks from a recognized Uty. 3. Ph.D. Degree in Education from a recognized Uty. 4. 15 years of teaching experience of which 3 years should be in a Research/Training Institution in Education or Institutions of similar nature. 5. Atleast three Research papers published in reputed research journals. 6. Participation in National or Inter-national workshops and seminars/experience in organizing orientation courses to teachers.” In the notification following note was also made: “Note The reservation rules of the Government in force will be followed for all posts. For SC/ST candidates relaxation in age up to 5 years. Working knowledge in Malayalam is essential. Age, Qualifications and experience are relax able in the case of those who are found exceptionably suitable.” Last date of receipt of applications was 22.11.2000. 3. On the basis of the above notification, normally a candidate below 45 years with required qualifications can apply for the post. On the basis of the above notification, several candidates (six in number) applied. In paragraph three of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent SCERT, it is stated as follows: “It is humbly submitted that applications for the post of Associate Professor was invited by the DPI on 06.05.95, 08.06.05 and 16.10.95. However, no interview was conducted. Later, on 05.01.98, 26.12.98 24.05.2000 and 20.10.2000 applications were invited from fully qualified candidates for selection as Associate Professor. The applications received vide notification dated 24.05.2000 was screened. The screening committee screened the applications received and the petitioner and one Dr. Shailaja were recommended to undergo interview for selection to the post of Associate Professor. Although the petitioner and Dr. Shailaja were interviewed, the selection committee decided to re-advertise the post, stating that both of them were internal candidates. The Governing Body meeting of SCERT held on 19.10.2000, considered the decision of the Selection Committee and decided to re-advertise the post of Associate Professors by publishing the notification in leading dailies to get more participation.” Hence, Ext.P1 re-notification was fixed. Even at the time third respondent was not qualified. Interview was fixed on 18.12.2000. Interview was not held. On the date of interview fixed also third respondent was not qualified. Even at the time third respondent was not qualified. Interview was fixed on 18.12.2000. Interview was not held. On the date of interview fixed also third respondent was not qualified. Matter was kept quiet for about two and a half months. SCERT was waiting for third respondent to get qualified. It is also submitted that earlier more than five times notifications were published, but to accommodate third respondent, no appointments were made and fresh notifications were published. On 21.12.2000 a communication was issued (Ext.R3 (a)) by Calicut University that Syndicate has decided on 16.12.2000 to award Ph.D. Degree under the Faculty of Education to third respondent. Hence, actual award of Ph.D Degree was made much after 18.12.2000. On the basis of his request, matter was discussed by the Governing Body of SCERT on 15.3.2001 and decided as follows as can be seen from Ext.P3: “38. Request from Dr.E.S. Remesan, Asst. Professor The request to include the Ph.D. Degree along with educational qualifications of Dr.E.S. Remesan, who is an applicant for the Post of Associate Professor, was discussed in detail and it was decide to invite all the applicants for interview irrespective of their education qualifications.” As soon as third respondent was awarded Ph.D. Degree, everything was done in extraordinary speed. Interview was conducted on 17.3.2000. On the same day Ext.P4 appointment order was issued to the third respondent appointing him provisionally subject to rules. Even in Ext.P3 Governing Body did not decide or come to the conclusion that age and qualification of the third respondent can be relaxed, because he is “exceptionably suitable”, but, what is decided is to call all applicants for interview irrespective of their educational qualifications. It will show that for SCERT educational qualification is not very important for the post of Associate Professor, even though rules prescribe for the same. Age was not relaxed. Therefore, calling of third respondent for interview itself was illegal. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent SCERT it is stated that age relaxation is given to third respondent (no resolution produced), but, it is categorically stated that educational qualifications were not relaxed. It is stated in the counter affidavit as follows: “The educational qualifications were not relaxed for the third respondent but he was given relaxation in age because the post was reserved for Ezhava Community and he was the only one candidate who belonged to that community. It is stated in the counter affidavit as follows: “The educational qualifications were not relaxed for the third respondent but he was given relaxation in age because the post was reserved for Ezhava Community and he was the only one candidate who belonged to that community. Since the post is reserved for Ezhava Community the 3rd respondent was appointed.” There is no case for the respondents that age or educational qualification was relaxed in the case of third respondent because he was exceptionably suitable’. His age was relaxed by the second respondent because the post is reserved for Ezhava Community and he was the only candidate from Ezhava Community. But, according to the appellant, in six notifications including Ext.P1, it is not stated that the post is reserved for Ezhava Community. If that be so, others need not have the pain to apply for the same. It was also submitted that Associate Professor in Research Documentation and Dissemination is a single post and rule of reservation is not applicable. It is further submitted that one Smt. A. Jayasree who applied for the same post was not appointed because she was not educationally qualified. According to the appellant, notifications were published from 6.5.1995 onwards and interview was also conducted, but, second respondent was waiting for third respondent to get qualified and obtained Ph.D. Once he was granted Ph.D. in January, 2001 everything was done on an emergent basis. According to the second respondent, Smt. Jayasree was not considered for lack of educational qualification and in case of the third respondent also educational qualification was not relaxed. It is also submitted that in Ext.P1 notification it is stated that reservation rules of the Government in force will be followed. Even without considering the contention that the post advertised is a single post and no reservation will apply and this post will go to Ezhava, then also only candidates with minimum educational qualification can be appointed. The fact that appellant was ranked II and third respondent was ranked III also shows that third respondent was not exceptionably suitable. If educationally qualified candidates from Ezhava Community (OBC) are not available to be considered as per rules, it will go to other backward candidates and if there are no other qualified candidates from backward community, it will go to general category as per Government rules itself. 4. If educationally qualified candidates from Ezhava Community (OBC) are not available to be considered as per rules, it will go to other backward candidates and if there are no other qualified candidates from backward community, it will go to general category as per Government rules itself. 4. Even in the counter affidavit of second respondent it is not stated that educational qualification was relaxed in respect of the third respondent. The only question to be considered is whether third respondent was having minimum educational qualification as per Ext.P1. It is an admitted case that that third respondent was not having minimum educational qualification on the date of publication of Ext.P1 notification or at the time of submission of his application or on the date fixed as last date of submission of application. It is settled law that in the absence of anything to the contrary in a notification, every candidates should have minimum qualification prescribed at least on the last date for submission of application. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18) a three members bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan (1993 Supp (3) SCC 168).” The same view was followed in Utkal University v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi ((1999) 2 SCC 193). Educational qualification was not relaxed with regard to third respondent even according to counter affidavit. Hence, his selection and appointment by Ext.P4 order is illegal and we set aside the same. Appellant cannot be denied the benefits because of undue favouritism shown to the third respondent. Third respondent was only rank No.3. Appellant was rank No.2. Appellant should be appointed from 17.3.2001, the date of appointment of third respondent. Both were internal candidates. It is submitted that in view of the interim orders of this court, third respondent was not given salary and he retired from service. He is entitled to salary and retirement benefits in the pre-promotional post. The writ appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs of the appellant/petitioner.