Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, in both the applications. 2. A common question arises in the two applications out of the same advertisement. Both writ applications are therefore being disposed by this common order. 3. An advertisement was published in 2004 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The educational qualification stipulated in the advertisement was Graduate or equivalent. Clause 11 of the advertisement required an applicant to submit his application before the concerned DIG Range either on the basis of his permanent address disclosed in the application or the temporary address disclosed in the application. It was specified thereafter that the application was not to be submitted at both the places. Clause 9 of the advertisement stipulated that incomplete or defective applications would be rejected. 4. The petitioners in CWJC No. 14432/2007 in their applications mentioned their permanent address as Munger. Under the advertisement their applications were required to be submitted before the DIG Munger Range. Their applications were submitted before the DIG Gaya Range. The application contained no temporary address whatsoever to justify submission before the DIG Gaya Range under the advertisement. The petitioner in CWJC No. 15762/2007 submitted his applications both before the Patna (Central) and Darbhanga Ranges based on his residential addresses disclosed in the applications. It is his case that he appeared only from the Patna (Central) Range. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the conditions in the advertisement restricted duality in application to prevent a candidate from taking his chance to appear at a subsequent physical test in Range in the event that he had failed in earlier physical test before another Range. The dates for physical test in the Ranges being different. The petitioners in CWJC No. 14432/2007 in pursuance of the cancellation of the earlier advertisement and before the recommencement of the selection process duly gave in applications before the DIG Gaya Range of the error committed by them in not mentioning their present address at Gaya in the application in justification of their having submitted the applications before the DIG Gaya Range. Prior to their physical test DIG Gaya Range forwarded their application to the Commission for necessary correction and they were then permitted to appear in the physical test which they did successfully. Prior to their physical test DIG Gaya Range forwarded their application to the Commission for necessary correction and they were then permitted to appear in the physical test which they did successfully. The submission therefore was that the petitioners having not appeared from both places and considering which they had been permitted to appear in the physical test there was no justification to deny them permission to appear in the written examination by qualifying them as persons whose applications stood rejected under Clause 9 of the advertisement. A similar argument was made on behalf of the petitioner in CWJC No. 15762 of 2007 that he had ultimately appeared for the physical test successfully before the Patna (Central) Range only and therefore the purpose of the restriction imposed by the respondents had been fully satisfied and he also could not be debarred from appearing in the written examination. Reliance was placed on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 13272 of 2006 disposed on 19.9.2007. 6. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent Commission submitted that applications which were found to be not in accordance with the advertisement and therefore defective have been rejected in terms of Clause 9 of the advertisement. He informed the Court that approximately 3300 applications came to be rejected under Clause 9. There was thus no infirmity in the order debarring the petitioners from appearing in the written examination. Reliance was also placed on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 6088/ 2006 dated 19.6.2006 dismissing a challenge by a candidate whose application was not in accordance with the advertisement and was therefore rejected under Clause 9 of the advertisement. 7. In CWJC No. 13272 of 2006, a Bench of this Court held that notwithstanding the submission of an application before the incorrect Range based on the candidates address disclosed his case was required to be considered because he had not applied before both the Ranges. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma V/s. Chander Shekher, 1993 0 AIR(SCW) 613, was considering an advertisement that provided as follows: ".....The applicants should not be more than 30 years and not less than 18 years of age on the 1st January, 1982, and should possess the qualification as noted against each post...... 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma V/s. Chander Shekher, 1993 0 AIR(SCW) 613, was considering an advertisement that provided as follows: ".....The applicants should not be more than 30 years and not less than 18 years of age on the 1st January, 1982, and should possess the qualification as noted against each post...... Attested copies of the following certificates (original to be produced at the time of interview before the State Rectt. Board) should be attached with the application:- (4) Academic/Technical Examination, Certificate. Incomplete applications and those not accompanied by the requisite certificates shall not be entertained. ....Candidates who fulfil the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the posts advertised shall alone be eligible for being called for interview and others need not therefore, apply." Incomplete applications and those not accompanied by the requisite certificate shall not be entertained. 9 Certain candidates who were in the final year and were to appear at the final examination applied without enclosing the necessary certificate but did produce the same at the time of interview as in the meantime they had cleared the final examination and their result had been published. They came to be appointed. The question was if these candidates could have been validly considered in absence of their applications not being in accordance with the advertisement. A three Judges Bench by majority view invoked Rule 37 of the J & K Public Service Commission Rules which provided as follows: "11. Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules reads: R. 37. Applications of candidates who have appeared in the examination, the 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 results whereof have not been declared up to the date of making of the application, may be entertained provisionally, but no such candidate shall 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 is held." 10. The appointments were thus saved. In his minority view R.M.Sahay, J. (as he then was) while also saving the appointment under Rule 37 dealt exhaustively with what would have been the result otherwise in absence of such Rule given the stipulations of the nature in the advertisement. The appointments were thus saved. In his minority view R.M.Sahay, J. (as he then was) while also saving the appointment under Rule 37 dealt exhaustively with what would have been the result otherwise in absence of such Rule given the stipulations of the nature in the advertisement. Discussing the issue in the relevant extract of Para 17 and 18 his Lordship noticed as follows: "The relevant part of the notification has been underlined by me. It can be divided in three parts. The first and the most important part required a candidate to apply on or before, the date specified, if he satisfied the requirement of, (i) being a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir; (ii) was eligible for the post shown in the annexure to the notification; (iii) was not more than 30 years and not less than 18 years of age on 1st January 1982; and (iv) was possessed of the qualifications as noted against each post. If the notification would have stopped there, probably, much could be said in favour of the appellants but the second part required every candidate to file authenticated copy of the certificate in proof of each of the conditions. The notification, further provided that incomplete applications and those not accompanied by the requisite certificates shall not be entertained. The notification, therefore provided not, only the conditions which a candidate was required to possess when applying for the post mentioned in the notification but he was also required to support it with authenticated certificate and if he failed to do so then the application was not liable to be entertained. In legal terminology where something is required to be done and the consequences of failure to do so are also provided then it is known as mandatory. The mandatory character of possessing the requirements as provided in the first part of the notification stands further strengthened from the third and last part of the notification which prohibited the candidates from applying if they did not possess the requisite qualifications. In view of these clear and specific conditions laid down in the advertisement those candidates who were not possessed of the P.B. qualifications were not eligible for apply nor their applications were liable to be entertained nor could they be called for interview. Eligibility for the post mentioned in the notification depend on possessing the qualification noted against each post. In view of these clear and specific conditions laid down in the advertisement those candidates who were not possessed of the P.B. qualifications were not eligible for apply nor their applications were liable to be entertained nor could they be called for interview. Eligibility for the post mentioned in the notification depend on possessing the qualification noted against each post. The expression shall be possessed of such qualification is indicative of both the mandatory character of the requirement and its operation in praesenti. That is a candidate must not only have been qualified but he should have been possessed of it on the date the application was made. The construction suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that the relevant date for purposes of eligibility was the date of interview and not the date of application or 15th July, 1982, the last date for submission of forms is not made out from the language of the notification. Acceptance of such construction would result in altering the first part of the advertisement prescribing eligibility on the date of applying for the post as being extended to the date of interview. If it is read in the manner suggested then the requirement that incomplete applications and those not accompanied by the requisite certificates shall not be entertained, shall become meaningless. Purpose of filing certificate along with application was to prove that the conditions required were satisfied. Nonfiling of any of the certificates could have resulted in not entertaining the application as the requirements as specified would have been presumed to be non-existent. Fulfilment of conditions was mandatory and its proof could be directory. The former could not be waived or deferred whereas the defect in latter could be cured even subsequently. That is proof could be furnished till date of interview but not the eligibility to apply for the post. Any other construction would further be contrary to the last part of the notification." "18. Nor can the notification, inviting applications, be construed in light of what was stated by the Government in the affidavit filed by it in the High Court. The stand of the Government that it always intended to permit candidates who qualified till date of interview was against record. Such subsequent embellishment by Government to shield its officers of permitting such candidates who were not qualified cannot be countenanced. The stand of the Government that it always intended to permit candidates who qualified till date of interview was against record. Such subsequent embellishment by Government to shield its officers of permitting such candidates who were not qualified cannot be countenanced. The Courts should not approve of it as it emanates in unfairness and ends in arbitrariness. Every candidate appearing in the B.E. examination could not have had knowledge, as was spelt out by the Government in its affidavit before the High Court, except probably those few who despite clear words of the notification chose to apply may be with knowledge that the interview shall not be held till their results were announced. The language of the notification must have prevented large number of candidates who must have appeared in the B.E. examination from applying as they were not qualified in terms of it whereas others of same group or class stood to gain due to intention of Government which was not known to a common man and was put up before the High Court in reply to the writ filed by the respondent. It is not borne out from the record. The appellants, thus, who were not only not qualified and were not entitled to apply and whose applications were not liable to be entertained by this method got an unfair advantage over those who for lack of knowledge of Governments intention did not apply. May be no one from those who were prevented from applying due to unawareness of the intention of Government which came to light in the High Court only could challenge the selection yet it is the duty of the Court under the Constitution once it is apprised of true facts to make the Government act fairly." 11. It is not in controversy that the advertisement contains no relaxation clause. In CWJC No. 6088/2006 a Bench of this Court observed that "If the petitioner is unable to understand even simple Hindi then that itself that he is unfit to hold the post of S.I. of Police" 12. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the applicants were not illiterate persons but persons possessing qualification of being a Graduate. There is therefore a presumption of their capacity to read and write. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the applicants were not illiterate persons but persons possessing qualification of being a Graduate. There is therefore a presumption of their capacity to read and write. If before his entry in the job he himself raises doubts about his capabilities and alertness to situations, the person proposing to offer him employment would be fully justified in suspecting his capability more particularly in a uniformed disciplined force. In the ever increasing world of competition it is a matter of common knowledge that candidates are screened on basis of scrutiny of the applications even before they are invited to appear at the regular examination. That is one of the methods of selection. Even in the present case as this Court has been informed 3300 applications were rejected under Clause 9 of the advertisement. 13. Clause 9 clearly stipulated that defective applications shall be rejected. The petitioners submitted defective applications. Such a candidate inadvertently called for the physical test cannot claim a waiver of the conditions of the advertisement individually in absence of any relaxation clause so as to defend a cause of action for issuance of a mandamus. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is unable to uphold the submission of the petitioners that the only purpose of Clause 11 of the advertisement was to prevent duality in appearance and that admittedly not being the case presently the action of the respondents in debarring the petitioners from appearing in the written examination was not justified. 15. In the result, both the writ applications are devoid of merit. They are dismissed accordingly.