JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Mannan, learned CGSC on behalf of respondent University and Mr. L. Tenzing, learned Counsel on behalf of private respondent No. 4. None appears on behalf of private respondent No. 5. 2. Two unreserved posts of Lecturer in Zoology including other posts were sought to be filled up by the Rajiv Gandhi University (hereinafter referred to as 'R.G.U.' in short), a Central University Rono Hills, Itanagar, through Advertisement No. 2-A/2007 dated 10.8.2007. Several candidates including the petitioner, in response to the aforesaid advertisement, applied for the post of Lecturer in Zoology The petitioner and private respondents 4 and 5 were short-listed for interview to be held on 19.9.2008 and accordingly, they appeared in the interview with their testimonials and other documents but the result of the interview was not published by the Selection Board. However, the private respondent No. 4 was appointed against one of the posts of Lecturer in Fish & Fisheries subject while private respondent No. 5 was kept in the waiting list. The petitioner gathered the said information through an application made under Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner challenges the select list dated 19.9.2008 prepared by the Selection Board (Annexure-III to the writ petition) and the appointment of the private respondent No. 4 which was made on the basis of the said select list. 3. Mr. Taffo, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Itanagar, advertised for 2 (two) unreserved posts of Lecturer in Zoology Subject. Out of these two posts, one was meant for subject 'Fish & Fisheries' and the other for subject 'Entomology'. The petitioner has no grievance against the appointment made in the post of 'Entomology'. Her grievance is particularly against the appointment of private respondent No. 4 in the post meant for 'Fish & Fisheries' and also against placement of private respondent No. 5 in the waiting list. The private respondent No. 4, who did M.Sc. in Entomology and Ph.D. in Parasitology is not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer in 'Fish & Fisheries' under Zoology subject as per the specialization prescribed in the advertisement dated 10.8.2007. The petitioner, on the other hand, passed M.Sc. The private respondent No. 4, who did M.Sc. in Entomology and Ph.D. in Parasitology is not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer in 'Fish & Fisheries' under Zoology subject as per the specialization prescribed in the advertisement dated 10.8.2007. The petitioner, on the other hand, passed M.Sc. in Zoology (Fishery Biology) and Ph.D. in Fish & Fish Feeds (Nutritional Biochemistry) with Fishery Biology/Aquaculture and having proficiency in the said field of Fishery subject and is, therefore, more qualified and eligible for the post of Lecturer in 'Fish & Fisheries'. It is also submitted that the petitioner is well ahead of private respondent No. 5 in the academic career, experience and publication of high impact journals. The impugned selection list and the appointment made by the respondent authorities are, therefore, liable to be set aside and the petitioner should be appointed as Lecturer against the said post in place of private respondent No. 4. 4. Appearing for private respondent No. 4, Mr. Tenzing, submits that the petitioner, although, was possessing essential qualification, neither did possess Ph.D. Degree in the subject concerned nor did she pass the NET/SLET on the last date i.e. 15.9.2007, for making the application against the post of Lecturer in Zoology and as such, she was not a qualified candidate. The Selection Board, finding her not possessing the Ph.D. Degree or the NET/SLET Pass Certificate on the date of selection i.e. on 19.9.2008, rightly selected the private respondent No. 4 and appointed him to the post of Lecturer in 'Fish & Fisheries'. In a recruitment process, where applications are called for, prescribing a particular date as the date for submitting the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone and a person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. This law, according to Mr. Tenzing, learned Counsel, has been laid down in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 and as such, the petitioner cannot legally make any grievance against the decision of the Selection Board in not selecting her for the said post of Lecturer. 5. The aforesaid position of law is disputed by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner is a better qualified/eligible candidate than the private respondents, particularly, respondent No. 4. 5. The aforesaid position of law is disputed by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner is a better qualified/eligible candidate than the private respondents, particularly, respondent No. 4. It is also asserted that the petitioner was possessing Ph.D. Degree in Nutritional Biochemistry. The claim of the petitioner is to be examined and decided on the basis of materials made available to this Court. 6. In the advertisement aforesaid, the last date for receipt of application for all the posts has been mentioned as on 15.9.2007. For the post of Lecturer (33 posts) including 2 (two) posts for Zoology subject, the said advertisement prescribed the essential qualifications, as under: Essential Qualifications.-Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade of B in the point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university... There is also an important Note, namely, Note 1, inserted in the said advertisement, which reads, as follows: Note 2.-Net/SLET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with post graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET/SLET for PG level teaching. 7. The petitioner submitted her application for the post of Lecturer in Zoology on 9.8.2007 (Annexure-IV to the writ petition). The details of her academic qualification have been furnished therein, more particularly in "Curriculum Vitae", as under: 8. From the aforesaid statement furnished by the petitioner herself, it is established that she obtained the Ph.D. degree from Tezpur University only in the year 2008 i.e. much after the last date fixed for submission of her application forms for the post of Lecturer in Zoology. As per 'Note 1' of the said advertisement, possession of NET/SLET Pass Certificate for the candidates who do not have the Ph.D. Degree, is a compulsory requirement. In the details of academic qualification, no statement has been made by the petitioner to the effect that she passed the NET/SLET examination. Such statement has neither been made in the writ petition nor in the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter filed by the respondent authorities. It, therefore, stands established that the petitioner did not pass the NET/SLET examination while the selection process was on. Such statement has neither been made in the writ petition nor in the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter filed by the respondent authorities. It, therefore, stands established that the petitioner did not pass the NET/SLET examination while the selection process was on. The petitioner having not been holding the Ph.D. Degree before or at the time of selection process would not be exempted from the essential pre-condition of passing the NET/SLET examination. This being the admitted factual position, the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Lecturer as per the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement dated 10.8.2007. 9. The details of the academic qualification in respect of private respondent No. 4, namely, Sri Amit Tripathi could be seen from the copy of applications submitted by him (Annexure-V to the writ petition). For a comparative consideration, it would be proper to quote the relevant portion, as under: From the above, it is found that private respondent No. 4 was holding Ph.D. Degree in Zoology from Lucknow University in 2004 and passed the NET in Life Science in 2001. The respondent No. 4 clearly fulfilled the eligibility criteria long before the selection process for appointment to the post of Lecturer started. 10. Similarly, the details of academic qualification in respect of private respondent No. 5, namely, Smt. Irengbam Linthoingambi could also be seen from the copy of application submitted by her which has been furnished in Annexure-VI to the writ petition. To quote the relevant portion thereof: From the above, it is found that private respondent No. 5 was holding Ph.D. Degree in Fishery since 2006 from Manipur University but she did not pass NET/SLET examination. As she was holding Ph.D. Degree before the said advertisement was issued, she was entitled to exemption from passing the NET/SLET examination and as such, she fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed by the respondent University. 11. On the basis of aforesaid materials, Officials respondents 1, 2 and 3, in paragraph 10 of their affidavit-in-opposition, averred that "...Secondly it is to be mentioned that the writ petitioner was not qualified for the post of lecturer at the time of applying for the post as she did not have or possessed the requisite qualifications for the said post. She was having neither the Ph.D. nor NET qualified, which is evident and crystal clear from her application so submitted to the University. She was having neither the Ph.D. nor NET qualified, which is evident and crystal clear from her application so submitted to the University. There is only a certificate of Ph.D. submission, but not obtaining the Degree of Ph.D. "Answering to the above, the petitioner, in paragraph 11 of her affidavit-in-reply, averred that"... While filling up of the forms the petitioner had clearly indicated that she had submitted her thesis for Ph.D. and before the interview she would produce the same. The petitioner accordingly submitted the Ph.D. certificate well in advance of the interview and was declared qualified for the post..." However, it is seen that the petitioner has not annexed a copy of the Ph.D. Pass Certificate either to the writ petition or to the affidavit-in-reply. It was not possible to do so on her part for she obtained the Ph.D. Degree only in the year 2008 as per the details of academic qualification furnished in the application submitted by her for the said post of Lecturer. For the same reason, the petitioner's claim that she produced the Ph.D. Certificate before the Selection Board would turn to nothing but a bald statement bearing not even an iota of truth. Such claim/statement must be rejected as a blatant false. 12. In this writ petition, it is to be noted that although the selection and appointment of private respondent No. 4 have been challenged, the legality of the selection process has not been questioned. This Court, is, therefore, not required to examine as to whether the respondent authorities duly followed the procedure prescribed under any statutory Act or Rules governing the selection and appointment of Teaching Staff. However, the Court is to decide as to whether the petitioner was qualified/eligible for being appointed as Lecturer in Zoology and as to whether the Selection Board committed any illegality in not selecting the petitioner. 13. In A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra reported in (1990) 2 SCC 669 , the Apex Court had an occasion to decide the question as to whether the minimum age of 21 years of a candidate for the post of DSP should be counted as on the date fixed in the advertisement or on the date of preparation of list of selected candidates for appointment. In the said case, it is held that the date of attaining the minimum age has to be a specified and determinate date and cannot be the date of preparation of select list. This is because the selection involves various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examination, calling for candidates for appointment. Therefore, the minimum or maximum age for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. This is because, if the final stage of selection is delayed, which happens more often for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The same principle applied to the case of Ashok Kumar Sarma (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for private respondent No. 4. In the said case, an advertisement was issued on 9.1.1982 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers fixing 15.7.1982 as the last date for submitting the applications. Amongst the candidates, as many as 33 persons who appeared in the B.E. examination and waiting for their results applied for the said posts. Their results (B.E. Examination) were published only on 21.8.1982. Interviews for the aforesaid posts were held on various dates commencing from 24.8.1982, yet the said 33 persons who were not qualified as on the last/specified date were interviewed pursuant to certain instructions given by the Government and they were selected alongwith some other candidates. In such a case, it is held that permitting the candidates who did not fulfil the requirement but acquired the requisite qualification later albeit before holding of interview to appear for such interview is impermissible. In my considered view, the decisions rendered in the above cases, would be applicable to the present case given the almost similar facts and issues involved therein. 14. The aforesaid position of law could be understood better if one refers to Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, wherein it is held that in absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. When the selection committee took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality and on this ground itself, the selections in question are liable to be quashed. 15. Considered in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it can safely be said that the Selection Board committed no error of law in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Zoology subject and there is no ground for interference with the impugned selection and appointment made by the University authorities. Besides, it may be appropriate to refer to the established law as laid down by the Apex Court in Chancellor and Anr. v. Bijayananda Kar and Ors. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 169 , to the effect that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts. It is held that whether or not a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the concerned selection committee which invariably consist of experts on the subject. Further, it was held long back in Parvez Quadir v. Union of India reported in AIR 1975 SC 446 , that suitability of candidates should not be adjudged by the Courts. 16. Above are the reasons for which this Court would prefer not to interfere with the impugned selection and appointment of private respondent No. 4 and would rather like to hold the present petition bereft of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.