Judgment :- 1. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner, who is a third year Law Student of Tirunelveli Government Law College, has filed this writ petition challenging the notification issued by the TNPSC dated 5. 2008 fixing the cut-off date for having the required qualification as on 5. 2008 for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and for consequential direction. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has passed B.Com degree in first class from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in April, 2005 and joined in the three year B.L. degree course in December, 2005 in Government Law College, Tirunelveli. Petitioner has completed the course and also appeared for the final year written examinations commenced on 15. 2008 and concluded on 6. 2008. The results of the B.L. degree final year examinations are yet to be published. According to the petitioner, she stood first in the college in the first and second year examinations and she was awarded the Jeeva Endowment award by the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, for securing higher mark in the first year examinations and she was paid Rs.5,000/- as reward. The Rotary Club of Tirunelveli awarded "Justice Ramaswamy Memorial Award" for being best Law Student for the academic year 2006-2007. Petitioner also represented the Government Law College, Tirunelveli and participated in the Moot Court competition, 2008, held at Army Institute of Law, Mohali, in February, 2008. According to the petitioner, by prescribing 5. 2008 as the cut-off date for having the qualification for submitting applications to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) by the third respondent through advertisement No.164, petitioners right to submit application, participation in the selection and get selected as Civil Judge (Junior Division) is affected. According to the petitioner, fresh law graduates having been directed to be permitted to participate as per the Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 1752 (All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others), by fixing the said cut-off date as 5. 2008 i.e., even before publication of the results of the final year students of the Law Colleges in the State is affecting the petitioners right and it is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said date viz., 5. 2008 i.e., even before publication of the results of the final year students of the Law Colleges in the State is affecting the petitioners right and it is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said date viz., 5. 2008 was fixed arbitrarily without any basis by the third respondent, particularly when the written examinations for the three year B.L. Degree Course was over only on 6. 2008 and therefore no fresh Law Graduate will be available to apply for the said post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The learned counsel further submitted that for the Engineering and Medical admissions, when entrance test was conducted for selection, even the students who were undergoing Plus Two (+2) course were permitted to apply and the same procedure could be followed by the third respondent so as to enable the fresh Law Graduate to apply, whose results are likely to be published during the course of the selection process and if the same is permitted, the fresh Law Graduates, who secured their degrees till the date of interview could be in a position to participate and the judgment of the Supreme Court as referred above can be given effect to. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submitted that the petitioner has only completed the course and has not even written the final year examinations on the date fixed by the third respondent i.e, 5. 2008. The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, issued in G.O.Ms.No.79, Home Department, dated 11. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submitted that the petitioner has only completed the course and has not even written the final year examinations on the date fixed by the third respondent i.e, 5. 2008. The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, issued in G.O.Ms.No.79, Home Department, dated 11. 2007, which prescribes the qualification for Civil Judges (Junior Division) states that a person competing for the said post must possess a degree in Law of a University in India and got enrolled in Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and in case of persons enrolled in other states, they should submit proof of transfer of their enrollment to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and must be a Practising Advocate or Pleader in the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto for not less than three years on the date of publication of the notification or must be a Assistant Public Prosecutor having not less than three years of experience apart from age qualification or must be a fresh Law Graduate possessing a degree of Law from a recognised University, who is eligible to enroll or enrolled as an Advocate and who has secured at the final degree examination of the degree in Law not less than an average of 50% of marks in case of OC and in respect of reserved categories an average of 45% of marks. It is also stated therein that fresh law graduates are those who have obtained a degree of Law within a period of three years prior to the date of notification and must have attained the age of 22 years and must not have completed the age of 27 years as on first July of the year in which the selection for appointment is made. The said age prescription subject to Rule 12(d) (ii), 52 and 53 of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services shall not apply in the recruitment of fresh Law Graduate i.e, upper age limit. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in an interim order dated 24. 2008 directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to invite applications for 201 vacancies within three weeks and the entire process of selection should be completed within six months of issue of such notification. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in an interim order dated 24. 2008 directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to invite applications for 201 vacancies within three weeks and the entire process of selection should be completed within six months of issue of such notification. Relying on the above rule as well as the order of the Supreme Court the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, who is a Law Student even as on today, cannot have any right to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) as she is not a Law Graduate and enrolled as an Advocate. 6. The question to be decided in this writ petition is that whether a Law Student can aspire for Civil Judge (Junior Division) post even before the Law Examination results are published and who has not enrolled herself as an Advocate. 7. Admittedly, petitioner is a final year Law Student of the Government Law College, Tirunelveli. Even according to petitioners own affidavit, the final year examinations commenced only from 15. 2008 and the examinations were over by 6. 2008. The notification was issued by the TNPSC fixing the cut-off date as 5. 2008 pursuant to the interim order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court made in SLP(Civil) No.7882 of 2007 dated 24. 2008 (Controller of Examinations, T.N.P.S.C. v. Registrar General, High Court of Madras & Another). The order of the Supreme Court reads as follows: "Heard both sides. The High Court and the State of Tamil Nadu come to a broad understanding in regard to recruitment for 201 posts of Civil Judges, Junior Division, in the year 2008. They made available a draft of what was agreed and the same is extracted below after incorporating the correction agreed: It is respectfully submitted that a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, by order dated 23.03.07 in W.P.No.5583/2007, directed the Registry of High Court of Madras as well as the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to adopt the procedure followed in 2003 for the selection of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2007 also. On appeal by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Honble Supreme Court of India, by order dated 07.05.07 in S.L.P.(C).No.7882/2007, has stayed the order of the High Court of Madras, dated 23.03.07 in W.P.No.5583/2007. On appeal by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Honble Supreme Court of India, by order dated 07.05.07 in S.L.P.(C).No.7882/2007, has stayed the order of the High Court of Madras, dated 23.03.07 in W.P.No.5583/2007. By order dated 24.09.07, the Honble Supreme Court made it clear that the said interim order would not come in the way of the petitioner (Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission) and the Respondent (Registrar General, High Court, Madras), discussing the matter and finding an acceptable solution as regards the selection of vacancies notified for the year 2007. The setting of question papers with key answers by the High Court and evaluation of the answers by Senior District Judges to be nominated by the High Court were agreed upon by both parties. The request of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for constitution of 5 Boards for the purpose of Viva-Voce and nomination of 5 Honble Judges in this regard was discussed. The Honble Chief Justice will nominate five Honble Judges for Viva-Voce and to depute the said five Honble Judges daily (for half a day) for about two weeks for the said purpose. The notified vacancies already made upto 30.09.2007 was 181 and it is revised to 201 upto 312. 08 in view of the fact that the selection process as well as training will take more than 6 months. The Chairman as well as the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, have agreed to notify the 201 vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) upto 312. 08 and start the selection process by issuance of notification calling for applications by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The above solution is arrived at for the present selection only, pending decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India, for future selection process. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the Notification inviting applications for 201 vacancies will be issued within a period of three weeks and entire process of selection should be completed within six months of issue of such Notification." From the above referred order of the Supreme Court it is evident that the vacancies existed and likely to arise upto 312. 2008 will be 201 in the cadre of Civil Judges (Junior Division). 2008 will be 201 in the cadre of Civil Judges (Junior Division). The Supreme Court recorded the submissions of the learned Solicitor General that notification inviting applications for the above said vacancies will be issued within a period of three weeks and the entire process of selection would be completed within six months of issue of such notification. To comply with the said statement, which was recorded in the above referred order, TNPSC issued the notification inviting application for 201 posts on 5. 2008. The TNPSC is also bound to follow the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, which is the rule for selection, wherein the qualification prescribed for Civil Judge (Junior Division) reads as follows: From the above said rule it is clear that a fresh Law Graduate possessing a degree in law from a recognised University, who is eligible to be enrolled or enrolled as an advocate with 50% of marks for OC and 45% of marks in respect of other reserved categories are eligible to apply if the candidate is within the age group of 22 to 27. The said position is made further clear by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13896 of 2008 dated 16. 2008 (M.Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others). The First Bench of this Court considered the issue as to whether a fresh Law Graduate without having been enrolled as an Advocate, can be treated to be qualified for submitting application for Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Division Bench held that the aspiring candidate must not only be a fresh Law Graduate but also must be enrolled as an Advocate. Paragraph 4 of the Judgment of the Division Bench reads as follows: "4. This Court finds that the aforesaid rules have been framed by the State Government after due consultation with the High Court and it is expected that the High Court has duly applied its mind to the aforesaid question. We are also of the opinion that an applicant for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) should not only be eligible for being enrolled, but must apply for being enrolled. We find that the said view which we have taken is consistent with the advertisement which has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission pursuant to the aforesaid notification." 8. We find that the said view which we have taken is consistent with the advertisement which has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission pursuant to the aforesaid notification." 8. In the above circumstances and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has only completed the course and her result is yet to be announced, petitioner cannot make a grievance that the third respondent arbitrarily fixed the cut-off date as 5. 2008 for satisfying the qualification as per the Recruitment Rule. It is relevant to note that even if the results are declared only after undergoing the process of enrollment and the actual enrollment one can get qualified for submitting application. 9. Whether before inviting applications for selection in public employment, cut-off date shall be fixed, was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 (Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab). In paragraphs 12 to 14, the Supreme Court held as follows: "12. All the appeals and the writ petitions have been taken up for hearing analogously. The only question arising for decision in this case is by reference to which date the eligibility of the several candidates is to be judged and the consequences flowing from the failure to satisfy the eligibility test in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr) vs. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad vs. Alpana 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 be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice. 14. In view of several decisions of this Court relied on by the High Court and referred to hereinabove, it was expected of the State Government notifying the vacancies to have clearly laid down and stated the cut-off date by reference to which the applicants were required to satisfy their eligibility. This was not done. It was pointed out on behalf of the several appellant-petitioners before this Court that the practice prevalent in Punjab has been to determine the eligibility by reference to the date of interview and there are innumerable cases wherein such candidates have been seeking employment as were not eligible on the date of making the applications or the last date appointed for receipt of the applications but were in the process of acquiring eligibility qualifications and did acquire the same by the time they were called for and appeared at the interview. Several such persons have been appointed but no one has challenged their appointments and they have continued to be in public employment. Such a loose practice, though prevalent, cannot be allowed to be continued and must be treated to have been put to an end. The reason is apparent. The applications made by such candidates as were not qualified but were in the process of acquiring eligibility qualifications would be difficult to be scrutinised and subjected to the process of approval or elimination and would only result in creating confusion and uncertainty. Many would be such applicants who would be called to face interview but shall have to be returned blank if they failed to acquire requisite eligibility qualifications by the time of interview. Many would be such applicants who would be called to face interview but shall have to be returned blank if they failed to acquire requisite eligibility qualifications by the time of interview. In our opinion the authorities of the State should be tied down to the principles governing the cut-off date for testing the eligibility qualifications on the principles deducible from the decided cases of this Court and stated hereinabove which have now to be treated as the settled service jurisprudence." (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, the respondents are justified in fixing the cut-off date as 5. 2008. 10. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 1752 (Cited Supra) also states that fresh Law Graduates without three years Bar experience can be permitted to participate in the selection, however, a Law student, who has not even passed the Law degree is not entitled to aspire for Judge post. The first and foremost requirement is to pass Law degree with required percentage of marks and should be eligible to enroll as an Advocate and must be an enrolled Advocate, on the date of the crucial date as fixed by the Government as well as the Recruiting Body. It is also judicially recognised that it is the prerogative of the Government to fix a cut-off date for any recruitment and merely because some will be affected, fixing of cut-off date cannot be held arbitrary. The petitioner is also not justified in citing the analogy of permitting students, whose results are not announced, to participate in the entrance examinations for admission to professional course. The logic behind the same is to avoid delay in completing the process of admission and to commence classes in the professional and other courses as per the academic year calendar. Here the petitioner, after passing Law degree can enroll and commence practice as an Advocate. Hence no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by fixing the cut-off date as 5. 2008 by the respondents. There is no merit in the writ petition to issue a writ as prayed for. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.